Repost from the old site. This post is very long and complicated – it runs to 83 pages – but I have tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. Please feel free to dip into it at your leisure. Updated September 4, 2013. Regularly updated.

As you can see by the title, this is an awfully ambitious post. Those who believe that race does not exist, or that Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid are outdated terms of no use, might as well bail out right now and save yourself the exasperation.

Recent prior attempts include the usual Mongoloid – Caucasoid – Negroid Three Race Theory, which is discussed below. The main problems with this theory are twofold: that it fails to classify a group called Australoids and that it fails to note the huge split between SE Asians and NE Asians.

From Cavalli-Sforza’s recent work comes an eight-race theory: European Caucasoids, South Asian and North African Caucasoids, Northeast Asian Mongoloids, Southeast Asians extending from Thailand to Indonesia and the Philippines, Pacific Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Negroids and American Indians.

This is not bad, but I would argue that there is no reason to put both Arabs/Berbers and South Indians in one race (see Cavalli-Sforza’s own map below). Genetically, they are quite distant.

From my World Book Encyclopedia 1990 comes a nine-race theory: Negroids, Caucasians, Asians, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians, Aborigines, South Indians and Amerindians. To this I recently added three more very distinct groups, Khoisan (Bushmen), Pygmies and Negritos, to come up with 12 races.

But we can go further than this. If Polynesians and Melanesians are widely regarded as separate races, we should be able to distinguish races based on any other major grouping at least as genetically distant as Polynesians and Melanesians. When I finally found two hapmaps showing the distance between Polynesians and Melanesians, I got the idea for a new race theory based on genetic distance alone.

This theory in most cases is based only on genetic distance, and not physical appearance of physical anthropology. In a few cases, races were grouped into a major group based on appearance – for instance, genetically, Chukchis are in the Caucasian square below, yet they look anything but Caucasian.

Though many distinguish Melanesians and Papuans, Capelli’s (see below) genetic analysis puts them in one race. But see Figures 1-4 below which clearly put them in separate groups. Also, Melanesian and Papuan teeth are very different from each other.

Some people are likely to be upset by this theory.

Surely the Japanese will not be happy to learn that they are virtually identical to the despised Koreans. White Nationalists will not be happy to learn that Turks, Jews, Kurds and Iranians are included in the European race and that they cannot include South Indians with Australoids.

NE Asians and ignorant amateur anthropologists will be unhappy to learn that there is no reason to lump SE Asians with Australoids and that the hated Filipinos (which some refer to as the “niggers of Asia”) are very close to the high-IQ, high-achieving Southern Chinese and the Filipinos haven’t a trace of Negrito in them.

It is standard of NE Asian racialists and amateur anthropologists on the Net to say that the Filipinos are heavily-Negrito.

There are traces of Australoid (Papuan) genes in the Malay, some Indonesians, the Southern Thai and the Coastal Vietnamese, but these admixtures are not large, and the Filipinos haven’t any observable Australoid traces.

Filipinos are closer to Southern Chinese than any other race below, although they are also close to the Aeta Negritos. This is because the Aeta and Ati Negritos are not Australoids genetically but instead are related to SE Asians. Anthropomorphically, they are Australoids.

There is also a more substantial Melanesian component in many Indonesians (except those in Western Indonesia), but there is little if any Australoid, or even Melanesian influence in existing SE Asian populations. It is common amongst Internet anthropologists to lump Melanesians in with Australoids. This is the case anthropomorphically, but not genetically.

In fact, as Figures 1-3 below indicate, they are Asians and are most closely related to other Pacific Islanders. In fact, the distance between SE Asians and Australoids is greater than the distance between NE Asians and Caucasians.

Afrocentrists will be unhappy to learn that various dark folks like South Asians, Melanesians, Papuans and Negritos cannot be considered to be “Black” by any sane definition of the word.

This theory creates nine major races and 113 minor races. It is a work in progress.

Most of this document comes from Cavalli-Sforza’s haplogroup gene map of the human race below.

The initial impulse for this post was this paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics, A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania (Capelli et al 2001). If you look at Table 4 in Capelli, you can see that they carefully delineate out Polynesian and Melanesian groups based on Haplogroup mapping.

Since many scholars of race include both Melanesians and Polynesians as separate races, this table serves to delineate what the proper genetic distance between genetic groups needs to be in order for them to be separate races.

Based on Polynesians and Melanesians as separate races in Table 4 in Capelli, I was able to sort out four more groups in that table, if only to get some idea of the distances between racial groups.

First, an Indonesian Race was separated out, including all but the easternmost island groups such as the Alor that go into Melanesian. Javanese and Sarawak were later included based on Figure 5. Later, based again on Figure 1, the Toraja and Mentawi were separated out, each into their own groups. The Toraja are an ancient farming group in South Sulawesi. The Mentawi are the indigenous peoples of the Mentawi Islands west of Sumatra. They still live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

A Lesser Sunda Race was also split out (see Figure 1), but the Alor were not covered, as they lumped more with Melanesians. The Lesser Sunda Race included the Lembata, the Lamaholot, the Manggarai and the Kambera. These people have mixed Indonesian and Melanesian ancestry. The Lembata and Lamaholot live on Lomblen Island east of Flores Island. The Kembara live on Sumba Island, and the Manggarai live in the West of Flores Island.

Second, a Filipino-Ami Race, composed of Filipinos and the Ami, a Taiwanese aborigine group (the Filipinos are almost genetically identical to the Ami and are quite close to the Southern Chinese – see Figure 1 in Capelli) was split off.

Third, a South Chinese Race consisting of unknown groups that was later expanded below was split off.

Based on the distances between these clearly differentiated races in Capelli, I was able to plot plot racial distances in Figure 1 above to infer major and minor races based on distance.

All of the groups created via Capelli were then further chopped up based on Cavalli-Sforza here (p. 234-235). An Indonesian Race consisting of Sulawesi, Borneo and Lesser Sunda survived the cut, while the Alor of Lesser Sunda went into Melanesians. Malays themselves are distinct enough to create a Malay race.

The proto-Malay or Temuan, who have some of the most ancient genes on Earth of all of the Out of African peoples, are an ancient aboriginal group in Malaysia. They have an extremely diverse genetic signature (See Figure 1), enough to split off a category all of their own.

The Bidayuh or Land Dayaks are the indigenous peoples of Sarawak. Their genetics are wildly divergent (Figure 1), as we might expect from such an ancient people, hence, they form their own stock.

Some comments are in order.

Although separate NE Asian and SE Asian Major Races were created in order to account for both the vast differences between NE and SE Asians (the distance between NE and SE Asians is greater than the distance between Caucasians and NE Asians) it should still be noted that at a deep level, this is clearly one race.

The Gilyak and Ainu are leftovers from the original Proto-Northeast Asians. The Proto-Northeast Asian homeland was around Lake Baikal maybe 35,000 years ago. The Ainu themselves may go back 18,000 years to the Jomons, who arrived from Thailand. These people resembled Australoids.

Northern Turkic forms a clear race with various Amerindians. The Buryat have also been linked to Amerindians, even though anthropologically, they are linked to Mongolians and genetically they are close to Koreans.

The North Turkics are closest to the Northern Chinese and the Nepalese, both of which were split off into separate groups. The Manchu and Qiang were added to the Northern Han based on genetics for the Manchu and the fact that the Qiang have an origin in the north. The Yunnan Han, a southern group, oddly cluster with Northern Chinese, as do the Hui.

The Nepalese, consisting of Nepalis and Newaris, are genetically Asians, though they resemble Caucasians. They pretty much straddle the line between Caucasians and Asians. A lot of groups close to them – Turkics, Mongols, Northern Chinese, and Altaics, straddle the line between Caucasian and Asian.

Nepalis are closely related to South Indians. They are also close to Central Asians. The Central Asian Race includes the Kirghiz, Karalkalpaks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and possibly others. Although they are mixed Caucasian-Mongoloid people, genetic analysis shows that they can be included with Asians. However, other analyses shows that they are best placed in with Caucasians, though only barely.

Others, such as Kazakhs, are closer to Tuvans and also Mongolians. The Kazakhs were placed into a Mongolian Race, somewhat arbitrarily.

The Sherpas were then further split off and placed in with the Yakut (p. 231). All of these splits were based on this data (p. 229). The Tuva were given a separate race based on data showing them splitting away from the Yakut-Sherpas (p. 229)

Northeastern Indians were put into the Mon-Khmer Race somewhat arbitrarily, since this is who they cluster with. There was some confusion. In one paper, the Naga, Apatani, Nishi, and Nemang cluster with the Mon-Khmer, and the Adi go in with Tibetans.

The situation is somewhat contradicted by this Y-DNA graph (Reddy 2007), which puts the Apatani, Nishi and Adi, along with the Tripuri, Jamatia, Mog and Chakma, in a single Indian Tibeto-Burman Race. Because of this cluster, and because this group tends to separate somewhat from General Tibetan, I created an Indian Tibeto-Burman Race.

Note that the Tibeto-Burman Tujia, Yizu, and Shan cluster away from Indian Tibeto-Burman to some extent. The Mizo and Yizu, Indian Tibeto-Burman groups, cluster more with General Tibetan. However, the Mizo are far enough away from the rest of General Tibetan to warrant their own stock (chart). The Garo also cluster with General Tibetan on Y-DNA, but on Mt-DNA, they are very different (chart) (Reddy 2007).

A group of the Mundas was split off as a Meghalaya Race on the basis of their differentiation on MtDNA (chart) (Reddy 2007). Some Indian Tibeto-Burman groups such as the Bai and the Pnar were included. This race includes the War Jantia, Bhoi, Maram, War Khasi, Kynriam, Nishi, Pnar, and Bai. All of these groups are found in Meghalaya or over the border into China.

A group consisting of the Santhal, Naga, Munda, Kurmi and Sudra were split off from this group due to their dramatic difference on MtDNA (chart). This group also lives in NE India.

There is a group of Indo-European speakers in NE India that can be differentiated from the rest of the groups on Mt-DNA. This NE India Indo-European Race consists of the Mahishya, Bagdi, Gaud, Tanti and Lodha.

The Mon-Khmer are close enough to Thai and Southern Chinese in Fig. 4 to be included with the Tai, but they were split off due to the obvious distance in Fig. 1. The Mon-Khmer, Southern Chinese and Thai groups are clearly all closely related.

The Zhuang were split off from Mon-Khmer into a Munda Race on the basis of this autosomal DNA table (p. 235) (Cavalli-Sforza 1994). The She were included because they are close to the Zhuang. The Santhal and Ho were included on the basis of this Y-DNA chart (Reddy 2007). This group is best thought of as an outlier Austroasiatic group.

The Austroasiatic Race consists of the Mon, Zhuang, She, Santhal, Ho, and Lyngngam. Most of these groups are found in NE India, but the Mon are in Burma. Most speak Austroasiatic languages, but a some speak Tibeto-Burman or even Indo-European languages. The Nongtrai group with this race in Y-DNA (chart) but not on MtDNA (chart), where they may well form their own group.

The Zhuang are a group in Southern China. They left Central China for Southern China 5000 yrs ago. This group was originally thought to be part of the proto-Tai group in Southern China that later moved down into SE Asia and gave rise not only to the Thai, but also helped form many other SE Asian groups.

At the time of the split from proto-Tai to Tai, the Zhuang went to Guangxi Province and the Tai went to Yunnan. In 1200, the Tai moved down into Indochina and mixed with local groups, becoming the Thai, Lao and Shan.

The Senoi are an ancient group in Malaysia dating back about 4,000-8,000 years. From the close genetic relationship, it seems that the Senoi may have split off from the proto-Zhuang or an earlier group soon after the group left Northern China for Southern China. The Santhal, Ho and Shompen may also have been early split-offs.

The Shompen at least are thought to be a very old group. Originally it was thought that they were remnants of the early people (Negritos) who settled the area, but further research indicated that they are an Austroasiatic group, albeit an ancient one.

Although there is much controversy about the origins of the Senoi (Are they Negritos?) a variety of points of inquiry converge on the notion that they are related to SE Asians.

The Senoi are Veddoids, an ancient group with possible links to the Negritos and the original settlers of Asia 70,000 years ago. There is fascinating evidence for this as Senoi skulls cluster with skulls from the Andaman Islands, Coastal New Guinea and Tamils. Andaman Islanders are Negritos, the New Guinea population is Melanesian and the Tamils are thought to be Veddoid.

I recently split the Greater Andamanese and the Onge into two separate major races each based on new data showing that they are profoundly different from all other humans. Whether or not they get separate major races of their own each is open to debate and is determined by the depth of their differences. However, the data does show that they are each completely separate branches on the human tree. As the Andaman Islanders were the first people to split off after we left Africa and they have been evolving for ~70,000 years in isolation, it figures that they would be extremely different.

I also decided to split Australoids into a macro race alongside Caucasians, Africans and Asians due to charts showing that they are extremely different from all other humans. This group would include for now Papuans, Aborigines and Andaman Islanders.

The Tungus, a group of mostly reindeer-herding tribes, including the Even and the Evenki, were given a separate group based on this map (p. 227). The Evenki are also close to various Tibetan groups, because these Tibetan groups came from NE Asia also.

Amazingly, the Yeniseien (of which Ket is the last surviving member) Language Family has now (in 2004) been conclusively tied to the Amerindian Na-Dene Language Family, the first conclusive linking of a New and Old World language family. Even though the Ket presently reside quite a bit to the north of the Altai region where most Amerindians came from, the Ket used to live down near the Altai thousands of years ago.

Northern Turkics include such groups as the Altai, Hazara, Shor, Tofalar, Uighurs, Chelkan, Soyot, Kumandin, Tuva, and Teleut. They are located around the Altai Mountains where China, Mongolia and Russia all come together. This is where most of the Amerindians came from.

Evidence for including the Hazara, who speak a language related to Persian, in the Northern Turkic group is a chart that shows the Hazara clustering with the Uighur.

Malay Negritos (the Semang) were given a separate race based on a recent study finding them highly differentiated from other Asian populations. The Jehai and Kensui are related Negrito groups in Malaysia (Figure 1).

Though Cavalli-Sforza includes Berbers barely into the African square, I include them with Caucasians due to their greater resemblance to Caucasians than African, and also due to genetic analyzes that show that they have little Black in them. However, some Berbers are clearly African. Analyses of the more-Caucasian Berbers find that, across the board, they are on average 12% Black.

Tuaregs were given separate races because they are clearly separate from Berbers and all of the African groups in Fig. 1.

However, Tuaregs do cluster (p. 169) with Algerians and Bejas. Since Algerians are Caucasian and most Tuaregs are Africans (though they vary considerably), I had to separate them into major races based on appearance. This is one of those cases where genes flies in the face of physical anthropology.

Bejas are a mixed-race people living in northeastern Africa and speaking a Cushitic language. They look like Ethiopians. Ethiopians are about 57% African and 43% Caucasian – Amhara are 57%, Cushitic are 56% and Tigreans are 53% Black. Since the Beja are a Cushitic group, on that basis, I put the Beja into Africans.

Similarly, Nubians are grouped (p. 169) in with the Caucasian Berbers, although most people consider them to be Black people.

I lump the Chukchi in with Asians due to their obvious resemblance to Asians. I included Aleuts with Chukchis due to a recent paper showing a linkage.

Siberian Eskimos were included for the same reason. The entire group was called the Beringian Race. The Koryaks were split into a separate group due to Cavalli-Sforza’s data. The Itelmen were later added to the Koryaks due to evidence showing that they are related. Both were combined into a Paleosiberian Race. The Reindeer Chukchi, apparently a more Siberian group, was split off due to its great (p. 228) genetic distance from other groups.

The Uralic Race was split into a Siberian Uralic Race including the Samoyed, Ket and Nentsy subgroups (p. 227). The Nganasan are an outlier (p. 229) in this group, and there was barely enough evidence to split them into a separate group.

Northern Na-Dene speakers were split from the North American Eskimos whom they resemble (p. 323), on the basis of this tree (p. 227). Similarly, Ge and Tucanoan (linguistic groups) Amerindians were split off from the rest due to great distance (p. 322) between them and the others.

A Fuegian Amerindian Race was created based on evidence that they exhibit extreme genetic differences with all other Amerindians. They are probably the ancestors of the original peopling of the Americas.

The Nootka, or Nuuchahnulth, were also split off due to the finding of a fifth major haplogroup lineage (p. 1166) in them in addition to the main four lineages – A-D – usually found in Amerindians. This line links back to ancient Amerindian remains and goes back to Mongolia.

I started out with a General Amerindian Race, but I decided to split it into four races – Northwest American, Northern, Central and Southern.

Further, the Amerinds have some of the greatest internal genetic distances of any geographical group, far more, for instance, than the Europeans and Iranians, so the splitting seemed valid.

South Indians are included with Caucasians based on a general consensus that these are an ancient group of Caucasians. The reason being their resemblance in facial and body structure to Caucasians.

Although genetic studies say that South Indians are all one race and there is good reason to believe this, there is a clear transition from one to the other.

There is data linking Vietnamese genetically with Cantonese. Vietnamese genetics are very complex and it is all being worked out. They are clearly an Austronesian-Tai mix with heavy S. Chinese admixture and some undetermined amount of Khmer and Cham mixed in. Vietnamese does not include the Montagnards, who are the indigenous people and seem to be related to Negritos.

There is good evidence also linking the Vietnamese and related groups to the Tai, however, there seems to be better evidence linking to them to a small group of mostly Mon-Khmer speakers. The Deang or Paluang, Jinuo, and Blang lump together with the Vietnamese (Lĭ 2006). The Mon-Khmer speaking Deang live in Yunnan, Burma and Thailand, the Tibeto-Burman speaking Jinuo live in Yunnan, and the Blang also live in Yunnan. So the closest living relatives to the Vietnamese people are in Yunnan, and next in Burma and Thailand.

Since there is quite a bit more distance between Filipinos and Thais than between Filipinos and Southern Chinese, I split off Thais into a separate race. I also kept the Filipino-Ami Race above, but added the Guangdong Han (Guangdonren in Chinese) to the group based on evidence that they are linked to the Ami.

Based on Fig. 1, I further refined the Filipino portion of this group into Tagalog, Visaya and Ilocano speakers, while splitting off the Manobo into a separate group, as they are divergent (Fig. 1). Tagalogs are an ethnic group who live mostly in Luzon and Oriental Mindoro, while Visayan languages are spoken in the Visayas region in the central Philippines, encompassing the islands of Panay, Negros, Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar, and Palawan. Ilocano speakers are located in the far north of Luzon.

A race called the Southeast China Race was created based on a tight clustering of the Minnan Nan, Hakka, and overseas Chinese of Singapore and Thailand. Based on Figure 5, the Cantonese Han (outside of Hong Kong) were added to this race.

A separate Taiwanese Aborigine Race was split off, based on Cavalli-Sforza’s work. This group, best seen as the principal Taiwanese Aborigine Race, consists of the Atayal, Bunun and Yami. Another Taiwanese Aborigine group, the Paiwan, was split into an Island SE Asian Race based on Cavalli-Sforza. Interestingly, the Paiwan, Atayal and Yami are also somewhat close to the Tai Race (see below).

The Taiwanese Aborigines have an interesting background, and their prehistory is in need of further research.

In addition to the Thais proper, I also include other Tai groups such as the Tai Lue, Tai Kern, Tai Yong, and Tai Yuan on the basis of Figure 5. All are found in Thailand. Many groups are related to the Thais. They are the Lao, Shan, Dai, Lahu, Aini, and Naxi. The Lahu, Dai, and Aini were included on the basis of this report. All of them are found in Yunnan. This group is found in Southern China (especially Yunnan), Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, and Burma. The Buyei are also related to the Thai.

Two aboriginal groups of Thailand are so different as to warrant a separate stock each.

The Htin, or Mal, are ancient aborigines of Thailand speaking a Khmuic language. In Figure 1, they are different enough to constitute their own stock.

The Mlabri are a very strange group of hunter-gatherers in Thailand who are very poorly understood. They live very primitive lives. Their genetics is wildly diverse and suggests that they were founded from a small stock only 800 years ago or so. That is, they went through a genetic bottleneck. Some think that they are former farmers who went back to land for some reason. They are one of the most genetically wildly diverse people in Asia (see Figure 1).

I lumped a number of groups into a Southern Chinese Race, including the Dong, Yi and the Han living in Henan Province, China, based on evidence that they form a group with the Southern Chinese. These groups are found in the Southern Chinese provinces, including Henan, Guangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Hainan, and Fujian.

I created a Hmong-Mien Race for the Hmong and the Mien, since, while they are close to the Southern Chinese Race, they are different enough to merit their own category (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Click to enlarge. A good chart of many of the Asian races, showing how well genes and language line up.

The Li is a genetically divergent Chinese ethnic group that forms it’s own outlier between the Southern and Northern Chinese. However, it trends more towards Southern Chinese. They also link up very closely to the Khmer. The suggestion here is that the ancestors of the Khmer were the Li.

What we are learning about Negritos is that instead of forming a distant group, they are often closest to the people they are living around. So the Philippine Negritos (Aeta) are closest to other Filipinos, and the Veddas are closest to other South Asians.

The Mamanwa, a Negrito group on Mindanao Island in the Philippines, are highly divergent from the rest of the Philippine Negritos. The Mamanwa are thought to be remnants of the original Negrito population in the Philippines.

The Palau, a Micronesian group, curiously cluster with Aeta and Agta Negritos, indicating that they may be the remains of the original settlers of SE Asia. The Agta and Aeta cluster together also (Fig. 1). The Aeta and Agta Negritos both live in mountainous areas of Luzon.

The Iraya Mangyans of the Philippines are also quite different, but they are close to the Ati Negritos, also of the Philippines (Fig. 1). The Ati live on Panay Island, in the Visayas Group. The Iraya are a Mangyan group living on Mindoro Island. The Mangyans are not Negritos, but they are still an indigenous group in the Philippines and are different from most Filipinos.

The Toba Batak, a tribe in northern Sumatra, curiously clusters with the Kanaka and Yap Micronesians. On Figure 1, the Karo Batak line up with the Toba Batak. They may be leftovers of the original Melanesian-Polynesian mix that populated Micronesia. The Kanaka is an old name for a Micronesian tribe that lives primarily in the Carolines and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

The Veddas are clearly related to the Negritos as one of the sole remaining leftovers of the group that left Africa 70,000 years ago and populated all of Asia. There are interesting links between them and the Toala of Southern Sulawesi and the Senoi of Malaysia. Nevertheless, almost all Veddas except the Kerala Kadar cluster with the South Indian Race.

South Indians include the Munda, Bhil, Maratha, Rajbanshi, Oraon, Parji, Kolami-Naiki, Chenchu-Reddi, Konda, Kolya, West Bengal Brahmins, Parsi, and Gonds. Although many of these groups are thought to be related to Veddas or Negritos and part of the original people of India, they now resemble other South Indians.

Kerala Kadar are a highly diverse Vedda group who are probably the ancestors of the original people of India. They live in the forests of Kerala and resemble Australoids.

The Gurkha and Tharu are two highly diverse groups in Nepal. In Figure 5, the Ladakhi are close to them, so a Himalayan Race was created to encompass them.

The Kanet live in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat and probably have some Tibetan mixture. The inclusion of the Uttar Pradesh Brahmin with these people in unexplained.

The Nicobarese and the Senoi cluster with the Munda Race on Y-DNA, but on Mt-DNA, they are extremely different (chart here) (Reddy 2007), which is suggested by their ancient origins. Each got a separate race due to their extreme divergence.

The Khoisan were divided into three groups, the San, Khoi and Hadza. The Khoi are probably a creation of intermarriage between SW Bantus and San. The Hadza are an ancient group in Kenya and Ethiopia. The San form a separate race with the Somalis.

The Sandawe are another Khoisan group that was also divergent, but not enough to form a separate group, on the table here (p. 176), but was split off due to its divergence on the tree here (p. 169) .

The Sara are a a very divergent Nilotic group from Chad, who form a race with Biaka Pygmies from Central African Republic. All of the African splits are from here (p. 169).

The Funji, a Nilo-Saharan group, was both split off due to their diversity (p. 169). The Bedik, a small group of 5,000 in Senegal, are also divergent. Though they are not divergent enough to be a race on the distance chart, they are on the PC and tree charts. The Funji, or Gule, live in Sudan on the Blue Nile near the Ethiopian border (p. 170). The Bedik are a small group in Senegal.

Three groups in Senegal, the Peul, Serer (650,000) and Wolof (2 million), were split off into a separate group although they they do not have enough distance in the distance chart to warrant that, similar to the Southern Chinese, Thai and Khmer. However, like these three groups, the Senegalese groups are quite different on the PC Chart and on the tree chart, so they were split off (p. 181-182).

The Peul (700,000) speak Fulani (Peul is just French for Fulani), but are settled African farmers, unlike the more pastoralist Caucasian – Berber group that roams across the Sahel.

Although the difference between SE and NE Asians is deeper than that between Asians and Caucasians, it is clear that this is all one race – the Mongoloids. Inside of that group, all of the Chinese are related.

The traditional tripartite system favored today by racial minimalists – Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid – is appealing, but I could not reproduce it. As there is as much difference between Asians and Caucasians as between SE Asians and NE Asians, why should I create a Mongoloid Race?

Instead, I split it into nine separate major races. This enabled me to account for the fact that while Australoids are Asians (genetic analysis of various Australoids has proven this), they are definitely an extremely divergent group.

This analysis also recognizes the deep diversity of Australoids – the Aborigines are more distant to Africans than any other race (once again despite physical appearance), due to genetic drift in Australia for millennia.

At first I put Papuans into an Australoid Race with Aborigines, but later I split them off. The distance between Aborigines and Papuans is as great as between Caucasians and Asians, so why lump the two Oceanians together? At the same time, we should recognize that there is a Mongoloid super-group that does encompass Aborigines, Papuans and both NE and SE Asians.

Figure 1 puts Aborigines barely into the NE Asian square, Papuans on the line between SE and NE Asians and Melanesians further down in the SE Asian square. Aborigines they are mostly closely related first to Mongolians and Siberians and next to Japanese and Koreans. This is due to the Ainu substructure in these groups.

I also reluctantly split off the Kalash into a separate major race, inside of Caucasians, based on a stunning paper that differentiated the Kalash among groups such as Africans, East Asians, Oceanians, etc.

Based on Cavalli-Sforza’s six-race theory above in part, I split off Amerindians into a separate race inside of Asians. I also split off Pacific Islanders into a group called Oceanians, but contra Cavalli-Sforza, I did not include Papuans with the rest of the Pacific Islanders.

My Pacific Islander group includes Melanesians, Micronesians and Polynesians. Note that one group of Indonesians is included in each of the Melanesian and Micronesian subgroups. Therefore, there is no Indonesian race per se, as Indonesians encompass a variety of groups, although most can be put into a few SE Asian minor races.

That is based on genes. If you go by anthropometrics, you can get a group called Australoids that includes Negritos, Melanesians, Ainu, Papuans, Aborigines, Senoi, Tamils, and Fuegian Amerindians.

The Andaman Islands Negritos are also profoundly different from other groups, and are said to have the “purest” genetic profile of any group, once again due to genetic drift and lack of outside inputs. Papuans, Melanesians and Negritos are also extremely distant from Africans, once again despite physical appearances.

The Khoisan (San and Bushmen) in Africa are the oldest race on Earth based on genetic signatures dating back 53,000 years, and this is what the original humans who came out of Africa 70,000 years ago may have looked like.

The various Negrito groups, the Aborigines and possibly the Papuans are also very ancient.

The Bantu (or the Africans that we are familiar with) may go back much further – it has been up to 40,000 years since they split off from the Pygmies. There is a suggestion that they were distinguishable from Khoisan (Bushmen) even 100,000 years ago (p. 160). The ancestors of all Africans seem to have come from West Africa at least 35,000 years ago (p. 160).

Amerindians at the tip of South America are very different in head shape than the rest of the Amerindians – looking more like Australoids – and their genetics is also profoundly different.

The most ancient Europeans are the Saami and an ancient, isolated group of Sardinians. Among Caucasians, the Berber and South Indian Races appear to be very ancient, and both are extremely divergent within the Caucasian group. They may be surviving remnants of the most ancient Caucasians.

The South Indians are actually midway between Caucasians and Asians genetically and are only lumped with Caucasians because this is who they most resemble.

Europeans proper only go back 10,000 years or so, but the Saami (best seen as proto-Europeans) seem to go further back than that.

South Indians have been evolving in considerable isolation for about 15-20,000 years in the subcontinent. Prior to that, they appear to have come from the Middle East. The Berbers of today appear to be continuous with Berbers of up to 50,000 years ago, making them the most ancient Caucasian race of all.

The rest of the groupings mostly follow from Figure 1. More tables like Table 4 in Capelli would be very helpful in order to tease out more minor races.

A single asterisk indicates considerable genetic difference from related groups, two asterisks indicates a highly divergent group, and three asterisks is a profoundly divergent group. Major races are in red.

Some groups are not represented. I was not able to classify many groups with Negrito or Veddoid affiliations, such as the Tamils of South Asia and the Montagnards of Vietnam.

Mien and Qiang are Northern Chinese tribes, but the Mien have moved to the South lately. I could not find any good genetic data on the Qiang. The Nu were arbitrarily included in the Tibetan Race because they came from Tibet, but I don’t have good genetic data to prove that this is really a single unit. The chart here does not clarify things much.

The Bhutanese, though most closely related to Tibetans, were given their own race based on data showing that they are nevertheless considerably distant from Tibetans.

The Gilyak or Nivkhi are an ancient tribe living on the border between Korea, Russia and Japan that has ties to the Ainu. Ryukyuan is another name for Okinawan. They were given a separate race based on studies showing them intermediate between the Ainu and modern Japanese.

The Va (or Wa) are an ethnic group in Yunnan and Burma that seems to be distinct from the Northern, Southern and Tibetan Chinese groups. The Va seem to be about equally related to the Northern and Southern Chinese, indicating some sort of a dual origin. The Jingpo, or Karen, another Yunnan group that also occurs in Burma, were included with them based on this paper. The Lawa of Thailand were added to this group based on Figure 5. Interestingly, the languages of the Lawa and Va are also closely related.

A Southern Japanese Race was split off from the Japanese, Ryukuyans and Ainu. This group is made up of Kyushu Island, the southernmost island, and the Kinki region of Honshu, near the city of Kyoto. The Japanese in this area are highly divergent (p. 232).

The European-Iranian Race includes almost all Europeans except the Saami, Basques and Sardinians. The Saami and the Sardinians are very distant and the Basques much less so from the rest of the Europeans.

Although Cavalli-Sforza classes the Basques, Yugoslavs and Greeks as genetic outliers, there was not enough distance between the Yugoslavs and Greeks and other Europeans to split them into a separate group on the basis of genetic distance. Furthermore, the Greeks are clearly in the European – they are quite close to English and Danes in the PC analysis.

However, I did split the Basques off based on their lying outside the European-Iranian cluster.

The Greeks are interesting in that, while they are obviously a part of the Europeans on all charts, they are also the only Europeans that are are also close enough to most Middle Easterners to be included in their group. So the Greeks are a link between the European and Middle Eastern groupings inside the Caucasian Race.

The Iranian branch includes Jordanians, Iraqis, Assyrians, Druse, Lebanese, Kurds, Georgians, Caspians, Turks, Jews, and related groups in the area. It was difficult to decide whether to put the Turks in the Iranian subgroup or in the Central Asian subgroup, as they are close to both.

It was also very difficult to decide whether to put the people of the Caucasus, the Kurds, Turks, Caspians, and Jews in the Iranian group or the Central Asian group as they cluster with both. I decided on sheer geographic grounds to put them in the Iranian group. The Russian Saami are closer to the Tungus and were included in that group.

Although some Arabs, West Asians and all South Indians were split off, this was somewhat arbitrary. The Arabs are closely enough related to various Europeans, including Greeks, to be included with Europeans. However, the Arabs were not as close as the Iranians.

Likewise, South Indians are close to Iranians, who are in turn close to Greeks and Italians – note that Iranians are also somewhat close to Danes and English. As the Greeks link Europeans genetically with Middle Easterners, the Iranians link Europeans genetically with India.

West Asians were also split off due to their divergence. Based on this chart, they seem to be a compact grouping. This group includes the Pashtuns, Brahuis, Balochis, Makranis, and Sindhis.

Further research shows that the Tajiks and Hunza, who at first appear to group with the West Asian group above, actually compose two groups divergent enough to be split into 2 different races. The first group is made up of the Hunza of the Karokorams, the Bartangi of the Pamir Range and the Roma or Gypsies of Europe. So the Gypsies have a Himalayan origin.

The second group is made up of Tajiks, the Shugnan of the Pamirs, Bukhara Arabs and three groups in India – the Kallar of Kerala, the Sourashtran of Tamil Nadu and Yadhava of various parts of the region.

The Kalash, a strange, ancient, tiny tribe with Caucasian roots in northwest Pakistan in Chitral Province, are so diverse that they could very well form their own major grouping entirely, on a par with Africans, Europeans – Middle Easterners – West and South Asians, Oceanians, East Asians and Amerindians.

Since making a macro race out of a tiny ethnic group in Pakistan is absurd, I decided to throw them as a major race subsumed under Caucasians, albeit on the grounds that they are an extremely divergent race. They were classed with Caucasians because there is a general consensus that this is what they are (last two links are racist).

Due to their divergence, Kuwaitis and Arabians – consisting of Saudis, Yemenis and Bedouins – were split off into separate groups.

The are numerous groups that are more or less recent combinations of various groups and do not yet deserve their own racial category.

Hispanics are in general a mixture between Caucasians (typically Iberians) and Amerindians. They have been evolving for a short time and have not had time to differentiate into anything suggesting a race yet (despite nonsense from La Raza demagogues).

There are other Hispanics who are heavily mixed with Blacks, Caucasians and Amerindians. This is especially seen in South America in Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia, and even in Central America and Mexico.

There are large Black-White mixed populations in the West Indies. In Singapore and Hawaii, there are rapidly mixing populations that defy categorization.

This paper is basically just a shot in the dark and is more properly termed a pilot or exploratory study. I welcome evidence-based inputs from any knowledgeable persons who wish to add to this preliminary grouping of the human races, major and minor. All suggestions coming from nationalists of various types, ethnic or otherwise, typically lacking evidence, will probably be rejected outright.

There are 4 macro races of man, 11 major races of man and 115 minor human races of man.

I have read through your website and it seems to me that you are searching for an explanation of your origins or verification that your are a Macro race. How can you be a Macro race when you are the results or offspring from the Original people? First, i would like to submit that The Original people would not have classified themselves as a race as they were all the same. Race is determined, not by location, but by the degree of suppression of the Original genes. Suppression of those genes are expressed on several levels such as light eyes, light skin, and straight hair, not body structure. If you continue to separate yourselves by belief that your (whites) noses are straighter or that your eyes are recessed, and that your jaw structure does not cause your lips to surpass your nose, you will continually have to re-evaluate your hypothesis as these traits can be also found in the Originals. Those who still carry the Original genes cannot and should not be classified as a race therefore there are only two “macro” races: Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. I have to assume that macro in this instance means “many” not “genetic” as the lighter the race, the more suppressed are the Original genes. I know that this post is more than two years old but I am throwing this thought out to the universe anyway.

there has been an error here. it says that Kerala Brahmins are North Indians and Marathas are included in South Indians. this is wrong. Kerala Brahmins are actually Southerners and the Marathas are Western Indians

Wow, that is a great synthesis of a wide variety of information. Coming from an Asian Indian background, I can’t help but notice how complicated the Indian population structures seems to be. One thing that I noticed is that “Kerala Brahmins” are placed with the North Indians, interesting because Kerala is one of India’s southernmost, Dravidian-speaking states. I wonder if other Dravidian speaking Brahmin groups like Iyers or Iyengars would be placed similarly to the Kerala Brahmins or with the more general Dravidian group.

Also it is interesting to see that the Khoisan are, based on the modern and comprehensive criteria, in the same major race with other Africans, and not separated as they were by some of the early 20th century physical anthropologists.

I do not know much about India, but what seemed strange to me was that groups were clustering together that would seem to have no business doing so. I never noticed that the Kerala Brahmins are related to the North, but I guess it figures.

The Khoisan are a really tough call, and on some genetic charts I *can* split them off, and I am contemplating doing so. On the same genetic charts, I can also split off Ethiopians (an even better case for that).

All depends on what charts you use. Some charts will show some groups pretty close together, others will show them really far apart.

I’m glad you like the piece. Mostly, this post tends to piss people off, I guess because they don’t want to believe that they are related to the no good inferior so and so’s.

Well, I think what you are researching here is marvelous! I am a rare individual who is mixed with most of the (6?) or more main groups you have listed. I have learned more about myself through your post than my prior research because you show the racial/family trees so plainly and clearly. I have photos of all my ancestors and now your post has motivated me to take a genetic test. Can you recommend one that will show my mother and father’s diversity best? I am a woman. I think it is high time people realized that we are several beautiful ranges of mixes, not just Black/White. A friendly note of advice: Except for formal names of racial groups, I would recommend refraining from using words like “mulatto” because for mulatto people (who usually won’t tell you this – but they are usually offended) it is means “half donkey, half horse, sterile mule, stubborn, stupid.” Even though they may call themselves mulatto or accept the term, mixed people do not view it as respectful for an outsider to use. It is better to say “mixed” or “multi-racial” or “interracial” or similar words. Thank you for understanding.

Thank you for your research. Don’t listen to the folks who call you racists, just show kindness to them (they are often ignorant & I deal with them often) and protect yourself and your work from them. Keep up this great work so that we all may all benefit from the knowledge you have afforded us and better appreciate the varieties of our humanity.

wow, Caucasians have a lot of races ranging from pale skinned Norwegians to dark skinned South Indians….Some of my best friends are South Indians and they are very olive, caramel, pale and tan skinned.. Does that mean they are mixed down the line? All my South Indian friends are Christians too..I have heard many people saying that South Indians are very dark and none of my South Indian friends are dark..

I am Indian and its funny that many black nationalists claim that Indians are black people… HAHA! I don’t have any negroid features.. My lips are thin, I have a long nose(Like Barbara Streisand), my hair is straight and my skin color is light brown(like Halle Berry)…

Look at this youtube video.. This black nationalist is claiming that Indians are Africans..

Yes, the ones like you are actually quite close to Europeans genetically, or at least close to Near Easterners, to be exact. Some of your ancestors came from Iran, the Caucasus and Turkey, that’s why you have those European features. Not all Whites (Caucasians) have light skin. This confuses people.

OMG! Jacquelin ! I sooo agree with you.. I saw that youtube video too and that black supremacist guy is clearly dumb…

I am South Indian(Kerala) and I have the same facial features as Jacquelin… Except that my skin tone is olive.

I did a DNA test last year and I did have Turkish, Iranian, British and Portugese blood in me. I was soo surprised. I had no african blood in me and its funny that black nationalists claim everything black.. They even say that Filipinos are black..

And Thanks Robert for marvelous research on different races ! YOU ROCK !

Oh man, you ladies are getting me excited talking about the way you look. C’mon, let’s see what you look like, show us some pics. I love Indian women who look like that.

Those DNA tests have sort of marginal value, but you probably do have Iranian and Turkish genes. The lighter, more European Indians from the northwest came from Iran, Turkey and the Caucasus 4-5000 years ago. But they have moved all the way down to South India now. About British and Portuguese, well, they were colonizers of India, so maybe some of your ancestors were European colonizers.

You folks are not Black at all. You don’t have any Black in you at all. Germans have more Black in them than Indians do. Indians do not have any Black genes in them at all, not one bit. Even the Aboriginals are not Black. If anything, they are close to the people of New Guinea, but those folks are not Black either.

What do you mean Germans have more black in them!?? I am German yet i have no black in me. why are you so genralizing? You cannot say that simply because theirs Indian people who are mixed with black and theirs Germans that are mixed with black. Considering that their are 82,110,097 German people (in Germany) and their are 1,139,964,932 Indian people (in India alone) I think its kinda Ridiculus of you to say that just on the fact of the higher population of India It makes it 10x more likly, for just the opposite too happen!!!

Look at some of those charts above. They are for sure Caucasians all right, but they are on the edge of Caucasians and Asians so sometimes it gets tricky. That video is just wrong. If they are not Caucasians, what are they?

I do not believe that they are closer to East Asians, and I have been researching this forever.

There is a cline I call the Caucasian-Asian Divide. It runs from Turkey, through India, up to the Chukchi Peninsula. The groups along this divide are sometimes hard to sort into Asian or Caucasian because they are right on the edge. In most cases, I just went on appearance. Sometimes, I had to do a coin toss.

Most Indians have few Asian genes. The most Asian genes are found in the Whiter populations of the NW, where they are up to 15% Asian. The South Indians have little or no Asian in them. Going by appearance, South Indians look Caucasian and have Caucasian or Australoid skulls. Genetically, they are quite close to the Whiter looking NW Indians. So, really, they all need to be put into Caucasians.

The only real Asians are the Asiatics in the NE and far NW. Most Asians have an epicanthic fold. Have you noticed that Indians do not have this? Into Caucasians they go.

Tamils are like the remains of the original people of India! The original Indians looked like Aborigines, because 24,000 years ago, every Indian looked like an Aborigine.

The Aborigines are a mixture of two groups. One group came from the Ainu of Japan. They were called the Murrayans. They came 15-20,000 years ago. Another group called Carpenterians came 10-15,000 years ago. They came from far south India. These two groups mixed in with remains of the native Australoids (very primitive) and became the Aborigines.

The Tamils are related to Negritos, Papuans (related to Aborigines) and the Senoi (remains of the Carpinterians left in Thailand) and Melanesians. All these groups, phenotypically, are Australoids. But genetically, Senoi are SE Asians, Papuans are Australoids and Melanesians are Oceanians (type of Asian).

So the Tamils are just the remains of the very, very ancient people that once lived all over Asia. They are not mixed with Aborigine, they are related to them. Recall that a long time ago, Aborigine types were generalized all across Asia.

The rest of those women all look really hot! The ones in the north are lighter, but they really are all the same race.

South Indians and North Indians are closely related. This group has been evolving more or less in situ without a lot of outside inputs, for 17,000 years. 17,000 years ago, the proto-Indians came to India from the Middle East. They displaced the Tamil Australoid types that were generalized across India.

Furthermore, India, along with Caucasus, Middle East, and North Africa, forms one of the birthing grounds of all of the Caucasians 39,000-52,000 years ago. So, Indians look different from Europeans and other Caucasians we are used to because they are very ancient Caucasians. The Indians, with others, gave birth to the whole Caucasian race, including Europeans.

u say the aborigine ancestors came to australia alot more recently than i thought. i thought they went there at most around 40,000 years ago! I would like to know if in your research austroloids populated the American continent but were subsequently replaced by the mongoloids?

or is it that the australoid looking amerindians(or ‘aboriginals’ as the term is applied to australian looking indigenous people) of del fuega are representative of the earliest amerindians? were the first amrericans australoid perhaps looking ainuish?

Ok let’s see. First of all, I can’t believe how hot women from Kerala are. I thought they were all these kind of “Dravidian” people that I am not really attracted to.

First photo (Kerala): Those women are babes! Both of them!

Second photo (Kerala, woman and guy): She looks good, I have to admit she’s hot.

Third pic (Kerala) is more exotic. I like the two chicks in the middle though. They look awesome. The rest, I’m not so sure. They are attractive, but I am not sure they are for me, as I like European type women. Might take some getting used to. The one on the far right looks good too.

Fourth pic (Gujarat) I have to admit this is more my type. All those women look great, but they all look really European. Hotties!

Fifth pic: The Punjabi woman is just awesome. She could be an Italian. She just looks like a European woman.

Sixth pic (Kerala, woman with guy): She’s exotic, but you have to admit, she’s a total fox! She looks very, very good.

Seventh pic (Karnataka): Wow! Once again, I go for that type. She looks extremely European. That woman is just too much.

Eighth pic (Tamils): I have to admit some of the women are good looking, but they are just not for me for some reason. To me, they just look kind of strange. But then, I like the European phenotype. They are also very different from all the other people you showed.

I think it’s clear based on these pics that there is often not a lot of difference between North and South Indians. They don’t look that much different, really, when you get down to it.

There are a lot of hotties in North India followed by Karnataka (South India) and Kerala (South India) and also Goa.
If you type in “South Indian girls” on google images, There are a lot of hot women there. North Indian women are pretty too.

Hey, Your blogs are very interesting to read. I was wondering if there was Aryan invasion in the Southern parts of India like Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh.

I am a South Indian, specifically from Kerala(I live in the U.S) and I am very pale and I have European features. Many people mistake me for Middle eastern, Filipino or Italian. But, my father is very brown skinned and my mom is caramel skinned. But my sisters and I are very pale and one of my sisters have green eyes.

Well, those Near Easterners (Aryan invasion) moved into the northwest, and then I guess they just sifted down all through the whole country and mixed in with the indigenous more Dravidian types that were already there. There are more of the European types in the NW, and the phenotype is stronger, but it exists in the South too. Often in the South it is not as strongly expressed as in the North because it is more mixed with native elements (Dravidian).

The green eyes must come from a European phenotype. They only exist there. It’s recessive, but sometimes it comes out.

Phenotypically, some are Australoids, but only the ones that look like Tamils. The Yanadi, the Gonds, the Mardia Gonds, Irulars, Oraons, Malid Panyers and some other tribals. Most S. Indians are not Australoid in phenotype.

Where do the Dravidians or the South Indians come from? I know that the Aryans in India migrated from Northern Iran and Turkey to India years ago..

I heard that Dravidians come from Mediterranean places like Syria, Turkey and Greece way before the Aryans came.

I also read from some book that Aryans failed to realize that both Aryans and Dravidian come from the same place(Middle east) and that that the aryans pushed dravidians to the South.

Is there any truth to it?

I am Syrian myself and when you compare Indians to Syrians and Turkish people, they kinda look alike except for that skin color. South Indians tend to have brown/olive skin tones and North Indians tend to be very pale. But I have seen pale South Indians and dark North Indians too..

I am asking this because I am doing a research on this topic about the origin of Indians.

Dravidians came from the Middle East 17,000 YBP (probably proto-Arabid). Aryans came from SW Asia 4,500 YBP (Turcoid, Armenoid, Caucasid, Iranid). The Aryans probably did push the Dravidians to the south.

I would suspect, the Aryans came from eastern Europe due to the R1a1 Y chromosome haplogroup found in Northern India (Bnegali Brahmins and Kayasthas have the greatest amount of R1a1 in India) and eastern Europe (Poland, Russia etc…)

According to the latest report that I read (it’s available on the blog as a download) the Aryans came from SW Asia – the Turkey – Caucasus – Iran region. They Aryans would appear to be related to Turks, Iranians, people of the Caucasus, Georgians, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Azeris, etc.

New genetic evidence for the origins of castes indicates that the upper castes are more European than Asian.

R. RAMACHANDRAN

THE caste-based social hierarchy is deeply entrenched in Indian society even today, but the origins of the system as sociologists and historians now understand, remain an enigma. It certainly goes as far back as the second millennium B.C. when the Aryans, the migrating Indo-Iranian or Indo-European people, entered the country from the northwest and drove southward the proto-Asian and Dravidic speaking populations inhabiting the north. Literary evidence for the stratification of the society, at least in terms of references to the duties of the highest caste, namely the Brahmin, exists in the oldest text of the land, namely the Rig Veda (1500-1200 B.C.). The emergence of the caste system is thus associated with the arrival of the Aryans.

However, many sociologists believe that some kind of a hierarchical social order, in terms of an individual’s occupation and duties, was in place perhaps ahead of the arrival of the Aryans. Its evolution into the caste or the varna system as we know today – with the four distinct castes of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra in the order of social standing – probably occurred with the settling of the Aryans who sanctified and legitimised the social order in their own terms which had a distinct religious underpinning. Some sociologists hold that the societal stratification in terms of rights and duties of the individual was a creation of the Aryans in their bid to exercise power over the indigenous proto-Asian populations of North India.

An anthropologically pertinent question, therefore, is what really are the origins of the caste Hindu populations of today who make up nearly 80 per cent of India’s one billion population. In recent times, with the rise of strident nationalism in the form of “Hindutva” ideology, which rejects the premise that Aryans were outsiders and views them as part of the continuum from the Indus valley civilisation, an unequivocal answer to this may have political implications. While material evidence of ancient history has not been able to resolve this issue, modern population genetics, based on analyses of the variations in the DNA in population sets, has tools to provide a more authoritative answer. Certain inherited genes carry the imprint of this information through the ages.

An international study led by Michale J. Bamshad of the Eccles Institute of Human Genetics of the University of Utah of caste origins has found (the findings have been reported in a recent issue of the journal Genome Research) that members of the upper castes are genetically more similar to Europeans, Western Eurasians to be specific, whereas the lower castes are more similar to Asians. This finding is in tune with the expectations based on historical reasoning and the prevalent views of many social historians. In exercising their superiority over native proto-Asian populations, the Aryans would have appointed themselves to higher rank castes. The 18-member research team includes scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom, India and Estonia. The collaborating Indian scientists were anthropologists Bhaskar Rao, J. Mastan Naidu and B. V. Ravi Prasad from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, and P. Govinda Reddy from the University of Madras.

There have been genetic studies in the past that tried to answer this question but their results have been equivocal, in the sense that some have found European origins and some Asian origins. According to Partha P. Majumder, a population geneticist with the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Kolkata, who has written a commentary on the work in the same issue of the journal, the primary reason for this was the lack of data on a large uniform set of genetic markers from populations of India and central/west Asia. This study, where the researchers have used a battery of genomic markers and DNA sequences spanning three genomic regions, is a landmark, says Majumder. “The study provides an incisive genomic view of castes and their origins,” he has written.

“It is conceivable that the Aryan contact should have been progressively lower as one descended the varna ladder. The genetic expectation, therefore, is that the proportions of those genes (or genomic features) that ‘characterised’ the Aryan speakers should progressively decline from the highest varna to the lowest and a reverse trend should be observed with respect to those genes that ‘characterised’ the indigenous Indians,” Majumder says.

The three different genomic regions the study has looked at include two gender-specific genes and one biparentally inherited gene. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the DNA contained in mitochondria which are tiny organelles in each cell that generates the energy required by the cell, is exclusively derived from the mother. Similarly, the Y-chromosome, which defines the male gender in mammals, is passed on exclusively by the father.

Interestingly, an analysis of the genetic variations in the markers associated with the maternally inherited mtDNA and paternally inherited Y-chromosome show strikingly different trends. Maternally inherited DNA was overall found to be more similar to Asians than to Europeans, though the similarity to Europeans increases as we go up the caste ladder. Paternally inherited DNA, on the other hand, was overall more similar to Europeans than to Asians but, unlike in the case of maternal inheritance, with no significant variation in affinity across the castes. This is intriguing, but there is a plausible explanation. Migrating Eurasian populations are likely to have been mostly males who integrated into the upper castes and took native women. Inter-caste marriage practices, while generally taboo, are occasionally allowed, in which women can marry into an upper caste and move up in the social hierarchy. However, such upward mobility is not permissible for men. The caste labels of men are thus permanent, while women, by means of their limited mobility, cause a gene flow across caste barriers. This is the reason, according to the researchers, for the differing affinities of gender-specific genes among castes to continental populations.

In fact, in a study carried out in 1997, the results of which were published in 1998 in Nature, the same research group had mapped this female gene flow among caste groups in Andhra Pradesh. Analogously, in 1999 Majumder and colleagues examined the genetic impact of this social custom preventing upward mobility of males in the caste hierarchy. They looked at six genetic markers for the male inherited Y-chromosome and found that there was little sharing between castes of the features pertaining to the markers. This phenomenon has been described by Bamshad and company as “modulation of evolutionary forces by social processes” instead of through the normal, purely natural, processes of genetic drift and mutation.

Bamshad and associates examined 40 additional bi-parentally inherited genes as well, which also confirmed the results obtained from mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers that Hindu upper castes are genetically closer to Europeans. They thus conclude that Indian caste Hindus “are more likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank related and sex-specific differences in their genetic affinities to Asians and Europeans.”

Basically the study carried out three sets of comparisons of genetic variations respectively in the mtDNA, the Y-chromosome and the 40 specific autosomal (of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes X and Y) gene sequences in a sample of 265 males, belonging to eight Telugu speaking castes, from Visakhapatnam district. Comparisons were made within this sample and to 400 individuals from tribal and Hindi-speaking populations within the country and 350 Africans, Asians and Europeans.

The eight castes chosen were Niyogi and Vydiki Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vysya, Telega and Turpu Kapu, Yadava, Relli, Madiga and Mala. Significantly, the castes were ranked as ‘upper’, ‘middle’ and ‘lower’ instead of the four-level hierarchy of the traditional varna classification. Such a classification has in recent times apparently become more popular among anthropologists. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vysyas were grouped as ‘upper’ caste, Kapu and Yadavas as ‘middle’ caste and the remaining three as ‘lower’. “In studies pertaining to origins of castes, one is liable to draw incorrect inferences by including castes belonging to different varnas in the same ranked cluster,” points out Majumder.

For the extraction of DNA from the sampled population, after obtaining informed consent, about 8 ml of whole blood or five plucked scalp hairs were collected from each participant. The DNA extraction and its amplification by the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique was carried out at Andhra University by Indian scientists. To conform to the ethical guidelines of research with the human genome, approvals and clearances were obtained from Andhra University and the Government of India, according to the authors of the paper. (These DNA samples are being maintained by Andhra University where a laboratory has been set up to carry out such analyses.)

Analysis of “genetic distances” – a measure of genetic similarity and affinity – of markers of mtDNA, the maternally inherited DNA, between caste populations and continental populations shows that, irrespective of caste rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans. And as one moves from the lower castes to the upper castes, the genetic distances to Asians increases, suggesting that Indian populations are predominantly proto-Asian but with affinities to West Eurasian genes. The West Eurasian admixture is, however, proportional to the ranking among castes. Analysis of a special set of mtDNA markers (called haplotypes), whose loci in the genome are closely linked and which tend to get inherited together, also showed that the West Eurasian admixture amounted to 20-30 per cent of mtDNA haplotypes.

Similar “genetic distance” analysis using the paternally inherited Y-chromosome presented, as indicated earlier, a distinctly different pattern of population relationships among castes and among castes and continental populations. In contrast to the mtDNA distances, Y-chromosome data do not suggest a closer affinity to Asians. The upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the middle castes are equidistant from the two groups and the lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distances between caste populations and Africans increase as one moves from lower to upper caste groups.

Looking at the variations in a particular special set of Y-chromosome markers, the study disaggregates the European population into Northern, Southern and Eastern Europeans. The analysis of genetic distances shows that each caste is most closely related to Eastern Europeans. Moreover, the genetic distance between Eastern Europeans and upper castes is half the distance between the middle or lower castes and the Eastern Europeans. The authors interpret this as the Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y-chromosomes, being more similar to European than to Asian Y-chromosomes.

One limitation of the study is the restricted geographical region, namely a single district of Andhra Pradesh, from which the sample of caste Hindu populations have been obtained. The likely reason is that of the logistics of achieving rapport with local populations and getting their consent for genetic analysis.

But according to the researchers this also helped in “minimising the confounding effect of geographical differences between populations.” Moreover, the sample size of 265 is too small for drawing conclusions about a Hindu caste population of about 800 million. For example, the number of Kshatriyas in one comparison set is as small as 10. The authors do recognise this limitation in their paper and emphasise the need for carrying out similar analysis in other regions of the country. They, however, remark that because of the ubiquity of the caste system, it is reasonable to predict similar patterns in caste populations in other areas. But according to Majumder, replicating the study in other areas is, in fact, imperative before general conclusions about origins of Indian caste populations can be drawn.

“It is not generally realised that the caste society in a sense was a very elastic society and a caste bearing the same name may have very different origins in different geographical regions,” he points out. According to him there are examples when a tribe dispersed over a large geographical region took up different occupations in different sub-regions and fitted itself into the caste hierarchy on different rungs. Different Brahmin castes of Maharashtra, for example, probably had different origins, he says. “Thus, the origin of caste populations may not be uniform over the entire country,” adds Majumder. It is also reasonable to assume that northern societies are more likely to reflect more truly the real origins of caste than societies down south where Dravidic features are likely to be reflected in the genetics of the populations. Also, several social forces may have interfered to result in the stratification as is evident today. ”

No mention of Turks and Kurds and Azeris. The upper caste populations are much closer to Eastern Europeans. The Aryans may have come from Asia minor but either the Aryans were not responsible for the caste system and some other invading group is or the if the ‘Aryans’ are responsible for the caste system, then the present populations of Turkey, Georgia etc… have changed a lot (the original population got pushed to Eastern Europe).

There is one more theory by Stephen Oppenheimer as detailed in his book Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World.

The eruption, or explosion, of the Toba super-volcano in northern Sumatra circa 74,000 years ago, the largest such explosion in the last two million years, perhaps 100 times larger than the Krakatoa event off southern Sumatra in 1883, covered the entire Indian sub-continent in several meters of ash, probably destroying almost all life, including the early human population in the area. The populations to the east and south of the eruption were spared its catastrophic effects, but the population in southern Iran, and to a lesser extent the population in east Africa, probably suffered severe climate effects. The population in west Africa, protected by mountains to the east, was not as seriously effected. Within a few thousand years India was repopulated from the east by proto-Australoids.

By 50,000 years ago the population that had remained in southern Iran had evolved into proto-Caucasoids and began to expand — to the east into Pakistan and northern India.

Regarding Oppenheimer, a few things. Yes, Toba was very important. However, who says that there were any modern humans at all in India or Iran 74,000 YBP? Who says that there were any in India 71,000 YBP? Proto-Australoids probably looked something like Negritos. I don’t mind his theory that Caucasoids evolved in SW Iran 50,000 YBP, however, Cavalli-Sforza puts it at Ukraine and 45,000 YBP.

Yes, most Dravidians now are mixed with Aryans. Definitely. The more pure Dravidian are the tribal types.

Yes, South Asians have their own genes, but those are Caucasoid genes for the most part. The South Asian genetic set is best seen as an extremely divergent Caucasian group, one of the strangest and most different Caucasian groups on Earth. They are probably so different because they are so ancient. My feeling is that Indians are just very ancient Caucasians or possibly proto-Caucasians.

And you claim Indians are ancient Caucasians and we have Aboriginal like Tamils and other tribals in India. So if Fuerle is correct that Caucasians came from a desert Australian aboriginal like population, it supports your theory that Caucasians probabaly evolved first in India. But there is also the probability of back migrations of Caucasians to their original homeland from the rest of Eurasia from time to time.

Fuerle’s book claims that desert Australians are probabaly ancient Caucasians.

They are not. It’s widely recognized that they are Asians, albeit incredibly diverse ones.

He also claims that South Asia and South East Asia is the place where mankind probably began.

Yeah, he is really wrong on that. These White supremacists really hate the idea that grandpa was a “nigger”, and that’s why they hate OOA so much.

And you claim Indians are ancient Caucasians and we have Aboriginal like Tamils and other tribals in India.

They are ancient Caucasoids. From 39-52,000 YBP, India was one of the birthing grounds of the proto-Caucasians.

The tribes do resemble Aboriginals. This is because they are related to ancient proto-Asians (Australoids). However, they have since bred in or evolved so much that genetically, even the tribals look Caucasian, while on skulls, they are still Australoids or proto-Asians.

So if Fuerle is correct that Caucasians came from a desert Australian aboriginal like population, it supports your theory that Caucasians probabaly evolved first in India.

There is an article on this site called Dawn of the Caucasians that explains this. The proto-Caucasoids came out of Africa 55,000 YBP. From 2/3 proto-NE Asian and 1/3 early African (Masai type), the proto-Caucasoids were created 45,000 YBP. The proto-Caucasians were birthed in North Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus and India.

But there is also the probability of back migrations of Caucasians to their original homeland from the rest of Eurasia from time to time.

There were migrations back and forth between all of these birthing grounds from 39-52,000 YBP. Aborigines resemble S Indians because the modern Aborigine was created in part by an infusion of ancient S Indian 10-15,000 YBP who went from S India to Australia. This people are called Carpinterians.

Those White supremacists don’t hate you guys all that much. Even the most insane ones readily agree that Indians are Caucasians and that all Caucasians are related. The main thing they don’t want to believe is that Caucasians evolved from Africans or Blacks. NO WAY!

With the Chinese, it is simply egotism. There is a related trend with the Japanese and definitely with the Indonesians. This is heightened by the fact that they have found ancient Erectus skulls in Indonesia and China, hence Multiregionalism seems logical. Bottom line is all these guys are trying to say that their glorious people are so special that they came from a different kind of money than everyone else did. It’s all related to extreme ethnic nationalism and hyperethnocentrism. I assume similar crap is motivating the Hindu Indians promoting some similar nonsense, but Hindu Indians, especially those prone to supporting Hindutva type idiocy, are also hyperethnocentric and have tendencies towards extreme ethnic nationalism.

On this blog, we take a dim view of all ethnic nationalism because it seems to be inversely related to logic. The more ethnic nationalist the person, the more insane they are and the less sense they make. It particular, it seems to fry the scientific part of the brain.

Check out the most recent post I put up. That’s where I get my bit about the Aryans coming from SW Asia. I like that a lot better because North Indians indeed do resemble Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Iranians, etc. They don’t much resemble East Europeans at all. In fact, they don’t look the slightest bit like them. Anyway, Eastern Europe is not that far from SW Asia.

Bottom line is going back 4-5,000 years, we hardly have any good info on any human groups, much less their migrations and whatnot. Humans were not even writing stuff down back then. This area of study is one of extreme conjecture and very little is agreed upon.

“I like that a lot better because North Indians indeed do resemble Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Iranians, etc. They don’t much resemble East Europeans at all. In fact, they don’t look the slightest bit like them. Anyway, Eastern Europe is not that far from SW Asia.”

The Aeta resemble Africans but genetically are not Africans but closer to South East Asians. Aboriginal Australians resemble Africans (well somewhat atleast more than Europeans and East Asians) but they are further away from Africans genetically than Europeans and East Asians are. So what if we do not look like Slavs? Genetic research keeps on placing us (atleast the upper castes) with them. I am not doubting your claim that the Aryans probably came from Asia minor and Anatolia (the Hitites spoke an Aryan language) and that todays populations living there look like us (actually I kind of doubt this a bit, I think they only resemble the people north of Delhi like Punjabis and Rajputs. Rajputs are of Scythian ancestry mixed with tribal Bhil women) but Indian Brahmins, Kayasthas, Kshatriyas etc… are genetically closer to Poles and Russians even if they look like Meds. If your claims of Aryans having their origins in Asian minor and Anatolia is true, then obviously the population in those places have changed a lot.

In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve, who is thought to have lived about 190,000–200,000 years ago, refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern humans. In other words, she was the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, who is thought to have lived as early as around 142,000 years ago, and is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.
Each ancestor (of people now living) in the line back to the matrilineal MRCA had female contemporaries such as sisters, female cousins, etc. and some of these female contemporaries may have descendants living now (with one or more males in their descendancy line). But none of the female contemporaries of the “Mitochondrial Eve” has descendants living now in an unbroken female line.
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago,[2] most likely in East Africa,[3] when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.

I would like to see the evidence that places certain high castes so close to Slavs and Poles. The populations of India, ref. Cavalli-Sforza above, are all quite closely related to each other. That is, none of them is very closely related to Poles or Slavs at all. OTOH, North Indians are fairly close to Pashtuns, Iranians, Turks, etc. At least I think so. I know for sure that they are pretty close to Iranians.

Absent any close relationship to Slavs and Poles other than some blood group, I’m just not all that impressed by the relationship. See the Bamshad paper in my most recent post where they situate the people of the Aryan Invasion as coming from West Eurasia. I have not read the paper in a bit so feel free to look it over.

So, not only to Slavs and Poles not look the slightest like any Indians, they are not even closely related to them either. There does not appear to be a lot of connection there.

Robert you have yourself said that the populations who do not look like each other can be genetically closer while populations who look like each other may be genetically far apart. You do not care about the fact that the Aeta in the Phillipines look like negroids and not like the south east Asians. Why are you so stuck up on the similarities and differences of looks between Indians, Turks and Poles.

Many scientific papers claim that upper caste Indians are closer to Europeans as compared to lower caste Indians
Balakrishnan, V. 1978. A preliminary study of genetic distances
among some populations of the Indian sub-continent. J. Hum.
Evol. 7: 67–75.
———. 1982. Admixture as an evolutionary force in populations of
the Indian sub-continent. In Proceedings of the Indian Statistical
Institute Golden Jubilee International Conference on Human Genetics
and Adaptation (eds. K.C. Malhotra and A. Basu),

Have you missed this part

“Similar “genetic distance” analysis using the paternally inherited Y-chromosome presented, as indicated earlier, a distinctly different pattern of population relationships among castes and among castes and continental populations. In contrast to the mtDNA distances, Y-chromosome data do not suggest a closer affinity to Asians. The upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the middle castes are equidistant from the two groups and the lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distances between caste populations and Africans increase as one moves from lower to upper caste groups.

Looking at the variations in a particular special set of Y-chromosome markers, the study disaggregates the European population into Northern, Southern and Eastern Europeans. The analysis of genetic distances shows that each caste is most closely related to Eastern Europeans. Moreover, the genetic distance between Eastern Europeans and upper castes is half the distance between the middle or lower castes and the Eastern Europeans. The authors interpret this as the Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y-chromosomes, being more similar to European than to Asian Y-chromosomes.”

“Moreover, the genetic distance between upper castes and Eastern Europeans is approximately half the distance between Eastern Europeans and middle or lower castes. These results suggest that Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y chromosomes, are more similar to European than to Asian Y chromosomes. This underscores
the close affinities between Hindu Indian and
Indo-European Y chromosomes based on a previously reported analysis of three Y-chromosome polymorphisms
(Quintana-Murci et al. 1999b).”

About 50% of North indians and nearly 70% of brahmins and kayasthas of Bengal have R1a1 Y haplogroup. Sorbs , Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are more than 50% R1a1. Only 5% of Armenians have R1a1 which they could have easily absorbed from Russians. Only about 10% of Syrians and Lebanese have R1a1. I do not see how we are related to Turks and Armenians. Indeed R1a1 is also called the Viking DNA!

Indeed the most common Y haplogroup in those places you have mentioned being the source of the Aryans is J which is neither a major haplogroup in India (it does exist) nor is it a major haplogroup in Europe.

The problem is that the North Indians must have only split off from East Europeans pretty recently. So there must be a recent linkage between the two. But they look nothing alike. East Europeans do not look the slightest bit like North Indians. Given that the split must have been in recent times, they should look a lot alike, but they don’t. Nevertheless, the theory is interesting.

I read this entire book. It’s very interesting, but it is incredibly racist. OTOH, instead of just ridiculing this book, anti-racists ought to either try to scientifically contradict this guy’s premises, or, if we cannot, hold our tongues. Some of what he says is just out and out plain wrong. He denies Out of Africa, and he claims that the races separated 1 million years ago. That’s nuts.

The guy is obviously pushing an agenda. If he intended to treat the topic seriously he would have studied some actual anthropology instead of relying on outdated 19th century theories. I have no problem with his hypothesis, it’s just his premises are atrocious.

There’s a bit of confusion on this blog Robert. In the Aryan invasion post you say that the South Indians are more mathematically inclined because they have more Asian roots, but in this post you say “The South Indians have little or no Asian in them.”

I presume in both cases you mean East Asian Oriental. My view is that the south actually has less ‘Asian’ than the north, but simply more ancient Indian.

As for the Kalash, I don’t believe they can be regarded as a separate race based on just 1 (?) study. How would they maintain distinctiveness in one of the most ethnically turbulent and mixed areas of the world? And how do they fit into the Aryan invasion story?

Yes, I think I was wrong. South Indians are very close genetically to SE Asians. You almost have to toss a coin to figure out where to put them. I put them in Caucasians because of their appearance.

North Indians seem to have more European in them.

I’m going to split them off based on that study. It’s pretty good. I don’t have the faintest idea how they fit into the Aryan invasion theory. I suspect that the Kalash may be some the remains of some of the earliest Caucasians of all.

It seems you are trying to force a connection between “South Indians” and Caucasians because many people especially from Kerala have very European features. Kerala has witnessed a lot of migration from Syria and other places, because of the ancient civilization of peaceful people there who welcomed migrants that were probably ostracized from their previous communities because they adopted certain beliefs and practices that were exported by Dravidian spiritualists. Whatever the reason for their migration, it is known that the western part of South India has seen a lot of migration of Caucasians since antiquity. But purebred Dravidians have no Caucasian connection except that they are a most ancient race closely linked with Negrito/Aboriginal peoples, therefore many of the races that were birthed later naturally carry that connection. The branch gives birth to the fruit but the fruit doesn’t have much of the branch in it, if you know what I mean. Tamils, who are often considered to be synonymous with the term “South Indians” have little or no Caucasian in them (in terms of later mixing through Caucasian/Aryan migration), likewise most Keralites have little or no Caucasian in them, except for those families who at some point mixed with Caucasian merchants or explorers that journeyed to South India for its spices and various other specialties. The pictures you see of South Indian women with European-looking features are usually of models or actresses – those who are in professions where fair skin and European features are preferred whether due to bias or its more global appeal. But if you actually visit South India you will see how little resemblance there is to Caucasians and how much greater is their similarity to Negrito/Aboriginal people. Yet, you resist the strongly evidenced connection between South Indians and Negroid peoples, while trying to force a connection between South Indians (Dravidians) and Caucasians. I smell a fish. :-) There is overwhelming evidence that out of Africa came the father of all the races, and so you can’t get too far by excluding any race from the African link. Anyway, I believe there is only one race…the human race. At least that we can be certain is not based on speculation but truth. Peace!

Yes Amber, I don’t think South Indians have much Asian in them. It’s just that they can be close to SE Asians on some genetics charts. In the same way, Japanese and Koreans are close to Caucasians on genetics charts, but don’t have any White in them.

I think a lot of South Indians look pretty Caucasian. They look like White people who have been out in the sun too long, lol. Indeed, on both of those Cavalli-Sforza charts, South Indians are well within the Caucasian range. They are clearly Caucasians and not Asians.

I read it in some book that dravidians are classified as caucasoids. So, upper and middle class south indians seem to be the pure dravidians while the low caste South indians are mixed with australoids.

Australoids genetically are considered to be an extremely diverse form of Asians. They are further apart from the rest of Asians are Caucasians are from Asians, but it’s clear that they are Asians. Nevertheless, they are so divergent that it is tempting to split them off into a Major Race on their own.

If we go by genes, all S Indians are Caucasians. If we go by skulls and phenotype, Tamils and those that look like them with strong Australoid features are Australoids by phenotype.

For sure, in India there is a lot of mixing of Australoid and Caucasoid phenotypes. Keep in mind that 8000 years ago and prior, all Indians looked Australoid. At that time, they transitioned over to Caucasian.

Sure it is Australoid admixture, and Mongoloid admixture in the North, that makes Indians a Caucasian group that is close to Asians. Indians are an extremely divergent and unusual form of Caucasians compared to the others, but on genes and for most of them on skulls, they are Caucasians all right!

I think maybe they look so different because Indians are the remains of some of the very earliest Caucasians = they are ancient Caucasians.

No one really knows. But originally the people of India were all Australoids. 17,000 years ago, the ancestors of the modern Indians moved into India from the Middle East. They probably looked something like Arabs, but we are not really sure. They were surely early Caucasians. They bred in with the native Australoid types, but the general type remained Australoid. 11,000 YBP, another Caucasian group from southern Iran carrying haplogroup T moved into India from the north. They probably looked something like modern day Iranians. There was a transition going on from 17,000 YBP to 8000 YBP of Australoids transitioning to Caucasians. This was complete by 8000 YBP. It looks like later, Indo European Aryans from Central Asia moved in made India even more Caucasian.

Yes, a lot of North Indians are somewhat mixed in with Dravidian. I’ve seen some Punjabis that look extremely Dravidian and almost look like Aborigines. I’ve seen others that look so European I just think they are regular White Americans until they open their mouths.

It varies from North Indian to North Indian, how much Dravidian they have in them. At some point, it gets pretty hard to sort out what’s “North Indian” and what’s “Dravidian.”

It’s speculation. But India and North Africa are places where the Caucasian Race was birthed, and some Berbers and some South Indians look rather archaic or unusual compared to other Caucasians. Also their gene lines go back very far.

No, the ancient ones are probably the ones that look more Australoid or Aborigine. Like Tamils. The ones with the thin noses are more recent – Indo-Aryans from 4000 years ago or so. Berbers mostly just look like White people, but there is a group called Mozabites that look very archaic and different and I think they might be more ancient.

Berbers are just people like Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, Libyans. All those folks are pretty much Berber types.

No one knows where the Dravidians came from, maybe Western Iran. But what we now know of as Indians came from “the Middle East” 17,000 YBP. Whether that means Dravidians, your guess is as good as mine.

Intresting article,but isnt it a little broad based to classify Indians as North and South.
There are Indids/Indics – with Iranids and Afghanids as further sub races.
Then there are Australoids/Veddoids
Then there are Mongoloids- Indo Chinese South East Asians
The Europoid/Caucasoid sub race is mainly found in high castes irrespective of south or north.Though there can be dark skinned high castes and light skinned low castes,it is mostly concentrated in Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

The races were split up based on genetic distance, musing Cavalli-Sforza’s work as a basis. On genetic basis, it is not possible to split Australoids into a separate group with the rest of the Indians. The NE Indian Asians are listed as races under the SE Asian heading. Completely distinct race. All the rest of the Indians are basically Caucasians going by genes.

Caucasoid you mean?We arent white or European.
Would you know anything about the West Eurasian genetic make up of Iyengar Brahmins of South India?
I have observed a lot of Europoid looking people in my family.Eg:My grandma has green eyes and fair skin.Lots of other people in the family with light eyes too.Rest of the family have a Olive/Tan brown skin tone and dark hair primarily.
Also, if you DO possess the knowledge,can you base us on Y Dna’s?

Yes, Caucasoid or Caucasian, it’s all the same race. There is a mistaken idea out there that Caucasian means “White” or European. It’s means nothing like that at all. Caucasian is a major race of man, and all Indians but the northeastern one are within that grouping. Some data suggests that they are slightly outside of Caucasians towards Asians, but even there, they are just barely outside Caucasians. Anyway, just look at Indians. Are they Caucasians or Asians. They are Caucasians. They don’t look like Asians.

There are really only a few major groupings of man: Papuans, Aborigines, NE Asians, SE Asians, Caucasians, and Africans. Looking at it this way, Indians must go into Caucasians.

What is true is that Indians are some of the most diverse and different Caucasians on Earth, genetically. I think they may be ancient Caucasians and that is why they look so different.

But Indians are not that far genetically even from Europeans. You might be surprised. The difference between say Indonesians and Chinese is far greater. Indians are quite close to Iranians, and Iranians are quite close to Europeans. So Iranians are really the link between Indians and Europeans.

Also, I disagree that there are not White Indians. Some of the very light, European looking Indians are obviously White people to me. They are like Europeans outside of Europe for all intents and purposes. We have Punjabis in my town and until they start talking, I think they are just another Euro-White person. Many Punjabis look very European.

I am from England, working in India with the only group here trying to save the sustainable lifestyle of the oldest DNA group in India – (adivasis) tribal people who have occupied the land and forests since pre-historic times.

You call these “lower caste” people unintelligent, but one of the brightest mathematicians in the world came from this tribe. Some have won Nobel prizes. This tribe, of which most of India is descended from, is almost 100% African. They are the most intelligent people I have met in India, and have an advanced understanding of philosophy and ecological living. People in the U.S. that want to become “green” would benefit from learning how these people live.

There are thousands of African-Indians here that have lived here and intermixed with all of the Indians on the Indian continent. They are the oldest tribal group in India. Most of them are descended from the Indian King (who was born in Africa) Malik Ambar and his people:

The people in those photos look just like the people I work with here, and all the people you see hundreds of miles in any direction. Since they all look like the Indians here who have had DNA tests proving they are mostly African, then it is clear that few (if any) Indians in India are Caucasian. Only the ones are probably colonialists from England who never left.

All the people in the pictures shown above live in India and there are millions of people who look like this with the same DNA. No one can stop groups from mixing, it’s perfectly natural and normal. You should visit here before making assumptions that Indians are Caucasian. 75 men and 32 women in the group I work with have undergone these silly DNA tests – only to show visiting anthropologists again,.. that they are indeed native Indians (for more than thousands of years back) and also 90% or more African.

I read some of your other posts about the appearance and ethnic background of the original people of India, and was quite surprised at the level of ignorance here. If you went to Yellapur or Orissa, the Indians here (with very dark, black skin and strong, African features) have very coarse, kinky hair. Many Africans in Africa also what you call “wooly” hair like us Jews and many Irish. Actually, unbeknownst to you all, the kinkier the hair, the softer it is to the touch.

Also, Iyengar,…. even if you had white skin and pale eyes, you are probably descended from Africans, since there are several people with bright blue skin, bright red hair and white white skin in my sister-in-law’s family that have an African parent. Do a test and celebrate your heritage.

Come and visit us here in Orissa, and help save the planet. We are all descended from Africans – especially our Jewish families. Remember, Israel is closer to Africa than most cultures in the world, and the greatest love story ever told in my temple is the story of the “Song of Solomon and his Black Wife the Shulamite. Spiritual or literally interpreted, our Hebrew ancestors chose a dark, African woman to be the love interest for what is known to all Jews and Gentiles as “The Greatest Love Story Ever Told.” Also, the Torah shows us that much of our lineage and history occurs in Egypt, which is on the continent of Africa,… lest we forget our geography.

I’m not professional at this,but I sure have an intrest in Anthropology.I thought Caucasoid/Europoid refered to skull structure and facial/cranial features whereas Caucasian = White European?Of course we arent Mongoloid.We are just South Asians.If I’m not wrong Iranians and High Caste Indians(I do not in anyway use this to be condescending on the lower castes,just from a ethnic perspective)Indid/Indic , the former with little Semite mixture and the latter with Weddid mixture.
I dont understand how are you are classifying this:

And an ethnic group that looks like this , though light eyes not necessary http://news.krify.com/files.php?file=arjun_118108079.jpghttp://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9111/tamilnadueyes9vp.jpg into the same racial group?And shouldnt you be considering sub races under Europoid/Caucasoid like Nordic,Alpine,Medit,Dinaric,Irano-Afghan,Indic,etc?Indians- ancient Caucasians,hm..Are they direct descents from Cro Magnons?I find your views very intresting and surprising coming from a white person due to the way Indians are trashed around on White Nationalist sites ,with Brahmins and Kshatriyas setting up acounts trying to make them understand the hypocrisy of using terms like Aryan and trying to make them understand the concept of sub races.
Yup,fair skinned people higher as you go North West.Also you can clearly see the migration path for Brahmins who settle in the south- we are in Tamil Nadu – that is South East.

One way to do race is skulls. If you do it that way, some Indians are Australoids (Tamil and related types = Veddoids) and the rest are Caucasians.

If you go by genes, all Indians are Caucasians. All of them. Even Tamils and Veddoids.

All of the folks in those pics are Caucasians by genes, and probably by skulls too.

Those subraces are based on skulls. I’m not doing it that way. I’m just going strictly by genes. At some X distance, I just split off a new group.

I really hate White nationalists and I love to taunt them. Most Indians are not really White (check out those pics) but apparently some Indians look so European we might as well call them White. I think Iranians are White too. Even a lot of White nationalists agree with that way.

Thing is, those guys are not rational. They hate Indians and don’t want to recognize how closely related they are to Indians. Some Indians are probably closer to Europeans than your average Sardinian.

No one knows what Cro-Magnon looked like and all of those old races have all gone extinct anyway. That’s what people don’t realize.

Clearly the Aryans were up there in Southern Russia with the rest of the Indo-Europeans. Some went to India and some went to Europe, but they’re all of the same origin.

You know,I’ll reply to the stuff later , I find your views intresting really – Robert FTW!
Right now,I’m on Youtube loling at Afro centrists claiming Australoids/Weddids as their black brothers.What is up with them?Why do they hate India so much?I guess they dont realize that when your average Indian stares at them,its out of curiosity,ignorance and stupidity rather than racism.Whereas people from Harlem even attempt to murder NRI’s.They dont understand there is a general ignorance about anything foreign in every country huh?AFRO CENTRISTS ARE STUPID

Veddoids are supposedly a branch that evolved from Negritoes.Also Tamil people are have many groups so when you ? When you say Tamil you probably mean Proto Australoid.
Proto Australoid-Paraiyan,Pallan, Chakkiliyar and Mutracha.
Paleo Meditteranean/Indid-
Brahmins,Kallars,Vaniyars
Western branchycephalic features identified in Mudaliars, Vellarars, Chettiars, Brahmins and Naidus, might have entered at least 3000 to 5000 years ago.
I dont totally agree with this stuff,but yeah this is what the genetic make up of the Tamil community on the whole supposedly is.I know you wouldnt be familiar with the names,but thought it’d help other readers.
White Nationals , man when you go on a place like Stormfront and talk about Europoid sub races they immediately jump to the conclusion that you’re implying that you’re white.

If you are an anthro/ethnopologist,I’d like to ask you whether (in the case of India) you take into consideration things such as Migration and Adoption(in this case of the Weddid children by a few Brahmins).My ethnic group for example migrated from the Iran-Afghan belt towards North India,then a little later on further to the South East.North West to South East to be precise.Basically Brahmin immigrantshttp://churningthewordmill.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hema_malini_photos_1.jpg Women like her are typical of my ethnic group,could pass of for Persian even
so I dont know whether you should be lumping all linguisticaly Tamil people into the same Ethnic group,but I shouldnt be one to comment seeing the amount of research you’ve put together,anyway cheers but just wanted to point out a few things :)

Yes some Tamils are basically Caucasian on skulls, and others are more or less “Indian White People”, they are so European looking. I am referring to the classic Tamil type that Indians know well, that does look somewhat Aborigine.

I really don’t like to get into the skull stuff because it gets so messy and has a nasty history with racists, Nazis and all that. That’s why I stick to genes. Genes don’t have a history of evil people using them for racist means yet.

Ha , Yes , true that(about the cranial features).But it aint no harm getting into physical anthropology albeit the inflammatory potential if stated in a wrong manner.It’d be cool if you could you should do something on castes and their ethnicites.I’d really like that.

I still dont get why Aryan and Dravidian are racial terms.If you go by Anthropologists such as Lundman,Glowatzki and Egon von Eickstedt should’nt we be using terms like Indid(Gracile Indid,Nordindid) and Weddid(Gondid,Negritid,Veddoid)?

That article IS full of shit
-_- Aryans and Dravidians again lol fail.
Though its an ok attempt to classify the complex sub continent known as India but very flawed.Aishwarya Rai isnt a Dravidian,her features are typical of her caste and she is a New Migration Indic.Indians are our own race damn it , comprising of Europoid Indics/Irano Afghan,Australoid Weddids and Paleo Mongoloids with a whole bunch of hybrids as well.

Most of the ‘Dravidian’ girls are Indic-Weddid hybrids with most of them towards their Indid side.Almost all look Gracile Indid like the pic with the blue eyed girl :)
But the man in profile is a sharp featured Veddoid and the girl in the last picture looks Syrid mixed with Indid or Weddid.
NORDICS were never in India how much ever you Euro Centrists would like to believe,there is a seperate Europoid sub race i.e Indic/Irano Afghan and it is the same race which is found in Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan and High Castes of India.
India is a genetic mess so a lot of mutts.But you can surely tell which types occur in what concentrations in which castes.
The first pic under the Nordic heading is of Neha Dhupia – pure Indid and so are the rest of the pics-high caste Hindus probably Brahmins or Kshatriyas.

You Indians should let go your obsession with the Nordics. Nordics are a European only phenotype, nothing to do with India or China or Timbuktu.

On the other hand if you Indians are denying that a large part of the population of India, the mutts as someone said, is of Caucasoid origin, then you are deluding yourselves. Indid is just a Caucasoid phenotype common in India. For your information the Caucasoid group originated in Asia not in Europe, so how can Europeans be Eurocentric when all Europeans derive from various Asians. Asia is a name given to the other side of the Aegean and the east coast of the Mediterranean. The subcontinent of India is not even an original part of Eurasia but just a piece of Gondwana that floated off and slammed into Eurasia.

That’s a new one. I’ve never heard Indians refer to themselves as “nordics,” not even close. Most Indians are caucasoids but clearly not white. And what does Pangea have to do with it? That was 2 million years ago while modern humans are only 200,000 years old.

You know, those people, they are what I call WHITE Indians. They are not only Caucasians. They are out and out WHITES.

I consider anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe to be White. And to be honest, those in the photos, their ancestors were with us Whites in Southern Russia about 4,500 years ago. We went to Europe, they went down to India. So they are our relatives too.

I have notes for a post called The Whites of India and I need to do it some time.

To be honest, most Indians are clearly not White, even if they are Caucasian. Others look like Caucasian-Australoid mixes.

But it’s clear that there are a minority of Indians, not sure of %, who can clearly be called Whites. The number is not large, but they do exist, especially in the North.

^ To Ponto
Indid/Indic is the Europoid racial type in India,mostly found in North Western India and in High Castes in general even in non-Indo Aryan speaking regions, and is standard for Persians,Pashtuns and native Pakistanis.Iranians are mixed in with Arabids/Orientalids and to a lesser degree, so are Pashtuns.

Eastern Iran – South West Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan are where the highest[and purest] Indids may be found.

Nord-Indid/Irano-Afghan is the Indid proper racial type of India.Mostly in North Western parts of India and also in some caste populations in South India.

Gracile Indids are a darker Europoid type and is the result of Nord-Indid and Weddid/Australoid and/or Proto-Mediteranean[dark skinned Caucasoid] hybridization.

Indo Brachids are hyperbrachycephalic Indid types mostly found on the West Coasts of India.

The main sub races , cranio-facially speaking among Indids are Mediterraneanoid, Dinaroid, Cro Magnoid and Irano-Nordoid ; but other sub races such as Alpinoids are not uncommon.

That Brahmin man is Caucasoid/Europid but is not White!He is a Nordoid Indid.

I think your sample to han of china is too little. There are only four group Han in your division. One most north (Beijing han), three most south Yunan/Guangdong/Fujian( Singapore Chinese/Thai Chinese can find their roots in modern time Minnan and nearby east part of Guangdong, they speak similiar language hokkien and hakka).
Henan is classified as south chinese and most relate to some mid-west miniority group of china, but very different from their northern neighbour and southern closet relative some hakka and Minnan people? Really suprised to see this.
And I can understand why you put ami of taiwan and Han of Guangdong into same group. The indigenous of SE China are related to some aboriginals of taiwan. But really surprised to see philipinos also in this group. I think there are more than 90 enthic in philipine and some of them are negritos. So in my opinion philipinos are very diversified. Maybe some tribes are mixed with negritos some do not.

I think if added up more sub group of some enthic into this category would make your study more accurate.

The Ami are closely related to Filipinos. Filipinos are closer to the Ami than to any other group. Apparently, the Philippines was largely settled by Ami from Taiwan.

Also, when we look at the Ami, as you note, the Ami are related to the Guangdong Han.

Not so much Guangdong Han = Filipinos but more like this: Guangdong = Ami = Filipinos. Understand?

It makes a nice neat little race. I call it the South China Sea Race.

Negritos have a lot of Filipino in them, but Filipinos do not have much Negrito. Even Negritos cluster closer to Filipinos than to any other race due the breeding in with them for a long time. Still, Negritos are relatively distant from Filipinos on a scale. It is true that there are 90 different Filipino ethnic groups, but I only had one sample called “Filipinos.” That sample clustered closer to the Ami than to any other ethnic group on Earth. I think that all of the Filipino ethnic groups have been coming there from Taiwan or SE China for a very long time now. Down South, some may have come up from Indonesia, but I don’t have a lot of information on that.

Filipinos are not really “Malays.” They are more like a type of Chinese people! Malays, Filipinos and Indonesians are all quite different!

Of course they are Caucasians, closely related to Europeans. However, those groups from the Caucasus are highly diverse! They may well be off in their own little race, possible along with some other folks from the Caucasus.

Well, I would say Caucasian, of the “East Mediterranean” variety. When you hang around Iranians for instance, Iranian-Armenians are always said to look a little different. More “Greek” looking. I am sure there is a connection there someways back between the Greeks and Armenians.

Personally, I think Southern Indians look like brown skinned caucasians or something. The really pale skinned South Indians look European which is kinda intriguing. Also, the olive skinned South Indians look Middle eastern according to my observation.

PUHLEASE gimme a break ! How come you are claiming all the important ethnic groups as caucasians? Indians and Arabs are NOT caucasians.. they are their own race. So are Armenians, Turks, Ainus etc. you crackers need to let go of your obsession with claiming other ethnic groups.

Arabs & South Indians (most) are classified as Caucasoids by anthropologists & geneticists. South Indians may be dark but that doesn’t mean they have recent African ancestry. White and Caucasian are not synonymous.

well i’m a bidayuh , so how rare are we. Which population we are closest to compare? i think our language and race will go extinct in the near future due to mix marriages. Very hard to hold on to your people as there aren’t many of us in the first place.

Hi, you are Land Dayaks? If you look above, you will see that you folks are so different that you are in your own little race altogether! You Bidayuh are very, very different genetically! It looks like you are closest to other Malay and Indonesian groups, but not too much! You are very unique people.

Yes look on Figure 5. You are *extremely* different. Your closest relatives are the other people in Sabah and Sarawak, so yes, you’re related the Austronesians. You’re not as strange genetically as the Mlabri, but look at that pinkish white line in your genetic profile. It’s found in small parts in other Malay and Indonesian people, but it makes up the majority of your profile. What is that pinkish White line? One, it could be founder effect. You might be some of the remains of the oldest line that settled the island. Or two, maybe it’s due to genetic drift and you’re inbred.

If you look at your profile in Fig. 5, you see why I had to give you your own little race. You are *extremely* different.

I don’t know much about your people. Is there any evidence that you are the leftovers of some of the most ancient people of the area?

Ancient people i’m not sure. But vividly i remember oral tradition of great flood, aftermath from this was the leader choose to create three groups to go their separate way, in case such event to reoccur again and to ensure survival of the tribe.

Yes that flood occurred 10-20,000 years ago. Then the proto-Tai came down from China and settled in Indonesia, because they got seriously flooded out in mainland SE Asia. I know the Sea Dayaks are said to be the remains of the most ancient original people. Are you related to Sea Dayaks?

Excerpt: “In the Iban and the Bidayuh, HLA-DRB1*1202 was the most common DR allele with frequencies of 0.235 and 0.310, respectively. The two most common haplotypes for the Kadazan are A*34-B*38-DR*1502 and A*24-B*40-DR*0405, whereas for the Bidayuh they are A*24-B*15-DR*1602 and A*24-B*35-DR*1202 and for the Iban they are A*34-*B15-DR*1502 and A*24-B*15-DR*1202.”

But what i found interesting DR*1602 also found in Amerindian pupulation link:

Bengali Brahmins and Kayastha along with Baddis and Shudras came from UP, the Brahmins and Kayasthas came from Kannauj, my family tree can be traced back to around 600-700 years indicate that. So the Brahmins in Bengal have nothing to do with South India.

” Surely the Japanese will not be happy to learn that they are virtually identical to the despised Koreans.”
The modern generation of Japanese in the past decades has been more enthusiastic in pursuing the question of their origins and are generally more aware of their diverse genetic composition than you make them out to be. On prime time TV and newspapers, genetics studies on origin of Japanese and archaeological news are hot news all the time. While there may be many octagenarians left that are entrenched in their thinking, I assure you Koreans are far more nationalist and pushy in their views than the average Japanese is today.

What’s with the White dude in the cage? He dances like Michael Jackson, but he’s dressed like a bullfighter. I don’t get it.

And why was this filmed in New York City if everyone smells like curry? I thought everyone in Jew York smelled like grape wine and matzo.

And if it’s filmed in New York, why is Old Ben in the background?

The girl has the right idea at 4:00 when she starts taking off her clothes, but she stopped too soon. More Punjabi chicks should dress like Jane in the Jungle. Lose the fuckin towelheads on the dudes and sub for bikini top and loincloth bottom for the chicks. Two thumbs up with that.

And what language is that anyway? What’s wrong with these people? How come they can’t speak English like normal people?

So many things I don’t understand about this movie. This shit is weirder than Fellini. I watched the whole five minutes and now that bartender at the end needs to pour me a stiffy.

The Punjabis are the remnants of the Indo-Aryan types who came down from Kazakhstan speaking Indo-Iranian languages 3,500 years ago. A thousand years before, the Indo-Iranians were with proto-Europeans a bit to the west in the Lower Volga. The proto-Europeans then moved into Europe to become the various Indo-European groups. The Punjabis look European because they are from the racial stock as most Europeans are. They are basically “Europeans outside of Europe.” Kind of like Iranians.

The Punjabis look like Europeans because they *are* Europeans, racially anyway.

That may be, but the part about “proto-Europeans” coming from the Lower Volga is bullshit. All archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, and genetic evidence (not to mention, evidence from indigenous pagan religions/mythologies) point to an Anatolian origin of the Indo-Europeans. During the LGM, European hunter-gatherer groups gathered in some refugia in South Central Europe. (Iberia, Western Balkans, Ukraine…) Northern Europe was almost entirely covered in glacier, as were the Alps, Caucasus, Pyrenees, and other major mountain ranges. After the LGM, the scant remnant of Upper Paleolithic survivors moved back north, but Southern Europe was depopulated, only to be repopulated again by Near Eastern agriculturalists at the dawn of the Neolithic. These agro-pastoralists from the Anatolian-Levantine refugium brought farming, livestock, and copper to Europe. Among the earliest farmers were the Anatolian proto-Indo-Europeans. The Basques are probably remnants of the Mesolithic survivor population. The purest descendents of these Near Eastern settlers are the Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians. (Also the Turks, who inhabit the PIE origin land, ironically Turks, who speak a non-Indo-European Altaic language, are probably more Indo-European than most Indo-European speakers, especially Brits or Indians.)

Of course, there were other migrations around that time. A people closely related to the Mongols expanded westward accross Siberia, over the Urals and into Scandinavia, following the deglaciation. They introduced Uralic languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Lappish) into Europe and the Lapps are their most direct descendents. But we have strong reason to believe that Indo-European spread from the Near East (most likely North-Central Anatolia) chiefly due to agriculture. NOT from Western Europe (as some White Nationalists might believe) or from India/Pakistan (as many Hindu nationalists believe) or from Gimbutas’ fanciful Kurgan patriarchs (which Wikipedia deems as “official” and which you appear to take for granted). [Actually, it surprises me that so many people take for granted some nutty hypothesis proposed by the Marxist-feminist Jewess Marija Gimbutas despite the lack of evidence or historical precedent. At least the Paleolithic Continuity Model is based on some evidence (albeit misinterpreted) and the Out-of-India hypothesis is based on understandable wishful thinking.]

Consider the following:
* As per your own model virtually all Europeans cluster closely with eachother and with Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. Basques, North Africans, Arabs, and “West Asians” (i.e. Afghans) are minor outliers. This interrelatedness suggests a STRONG demic diffusion and also implies that the stat that Europeans are 80% Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants but only 20% Neolithic colonists is considerably off. How else do you explain that Europeans are generally closer to Iranians than to Basques?
* While Indo-Europeans are/were indeed fairly heavily male-dominated (Gimbutas was at least correct about this), this follows from a Near Eastern origin as the Middle East was, and still is, very patriarchal. Ironically, Gimbutas located the homeland those “evil patriarchal invaders” who decimated the “feminist utopia” that neolithic European society (allegedly) was in Scythia, which is believed to be the source of the Amazon legends…
* Indo-European languages show relatively strong affinities to Semitic languages, and probably Kartvelian and Pelasgian languages (the latter may have actually been Indo-European, related to Hittite), possibly Ligurian (probably Indo-European and related to both Celtic and Italic languages), and even Etruscan (controversially). No such closeness to Iberian (Basque), Ural-Altaic, or Dravidian languages.
* The oldest evidence of Indo-European languages comes from Anatolia (Hittite) and the Aegean (Greek in Linear B). Minoan (in Linear A) remains undeciphered and may have been related. Archaelogical records demonstrate a settled native population.
* Even the pagan religions seem to cluster near the Anatolian centre. Zoroastrianism and the Indic religions both descend from the Indo-Aryan religion, but Persian religion is more similar to ancient European religious traditions than the Dharmic faiths are. (Because Hinduism absorbed some Harappan/Dravidian (pre-Aryan) influences.) Greco-Roman and Germanic religoins were more alike than either was akin to Celtic (Druidic) paganism, the Celts being more matriarchal (and probably influenced by relatives of the Basques in Western Europe and the British Isles.

All this points to an origin for Indo-European in Neolithic Anatolia, but you are probably correct that the Aryans (Indo-Iranians, NOT blonde Germanic supermen) came into Iran and India via Central Asia. Most likely route being a clockwise migration around the Caspian Sea…

I have a hard time understanding why you are attacking me here. I support an Anatolian homeland for proto IE myself.

That said, I think there was a secondary spread from the Lower Volga for sure.

PS. You need to watch your tone or you will get banned. Calling my views “bullshit” is really pushing things, especially as you are a newbie. Please carefully review the Comments Rules if you wish to continue posting. A friendly tone is a must.

I am not attacking *YOU* personally. I don’t get why you got that impression, let alone immediately jumped to that conclusion. I was attacking “your” views in and of themselves, and never intended to attack you as an individual, but since you yourself claim not to endorse such a view, and seem to be in agreement with me on an Anatolian homeland (or primary homeland anyway), then I see no need for you to take offense. If I was “attacking” anyone it would be Gimbutas and Mallory (and the Wikipedia cabal for declaring their views as “official.” They laugh of Renfrew as a discredited crank but promote some third-rate ultra-left Lithuanian-Jewish (not that her background matters) professor as some sort of visionary…). I’m sorry if you took offense, but to be perfectly honest, YOUR response makes me not want to continue posting.

Anyways I refer to the Kurgan hypothesis as “bullshit” because, well, quite frankly I think it is. I agree with you (and Cavalli-Sforza apparently) on the possibility of a secondary (or tertiary) homeland for a group of IE-language-speakers seeded from Anatolia, and that seems compatible with the archaeological and (more fragmentary) historical evidence about the Indo-Aryan migrations. (I believe the area was inhabited by Elamo-Dravidians.)

Yeah, take off the turban , and he could be one of my White friends with a beard.

Some Punjabis don’t look all that White though. Some look more like classic Indians. But for sure a number of Punjabis are simply White people. Maybe we should call them “White Indians.” I don’t mean to imply all Indians are White, but there are definitely some White Indians all right.

This whole topic about Punjabis being white Indians is just so silly. Caucasians existed in Indian sub continent just like other races including aboriginal and mongolian races did. The Aryan invasion theory is now up in smokes as no concrete evidence has been able to prove that so called invaders came to India. The fair skinned Caucasians existed with their darker skinned counterparts and in later parts, lots of mixing took place. Kinda like whats happening now in US and by next 50 years or earlier, US would be what India is today.

The so called Caucasoid features features can be found in other parts of India as well and no one has the sole ownership of the color white.

Whats ironic is that Greeks, southern Italians, Spaniards who are darker than many of these so called white Indians and more non European looking are passed off as white, now thats stupidity defined.

Not really. White means you look like a European. Punjabis look a lot like Europeans. A lot of people in the rest of India are Caucasians, but they don’t look all that European. Punjabis do indeed look like Greeks, Southern Italians, etc. You might mistake them for one. They have a very “Mediterranean” appearance = they look like Mediterranean Whites.

That there was a movement of Indo-Iranian speakers down from Kazakhstan to North India 3,500 years ago is not disputed by any rational scholars. It is sadly disputed by many Indian nationalists, typically Hindutva fascist types, many of whom are high-caste Hindus, on pseudo-scientific and emotional grounds.

The evidence for the movement of Indo-Iranians down into Pakistan, North India, Iran, etc. is overwhelming. Archeological, anthropological, biological, genetic, linguistic, even historical and religious, you name it, it’s all there.

Yes, there were modern Caucasoid types in India since 8,000 years ago, but they didn’t look like Europeans until this recent movement.

White is technically a synonym for Caucasian, all Caucasians should be included as White, after all many Berbers do not look European either. Europeans themselves do not have a common look compare the average Sicilian to the average Saami.

The Europeans try to assert their supremacy with the fake Aryan invasion theory, not a single factual evidence has been found expect for speculation by white supremest. Since European history is far recent as compared to Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Persian etc., this is the only way Europeans try and take sole exclusive domain to the color white and the caucasian feature. Ancient texts like the Vedas which predate anything from west normally describe inhabitants of the Indian sub continent with the so called Caucasoid features.

One look at the oldest Proto European language Sanskrit shows clearly who migrated from where. Romani speaking Gypsies hold the key to the very same migration patterns. Also the very foundation of what is defined as Caucasoid feature is questionable, a real light skinned Nordic European would have slanted eyes closer to the Mongolians and their skins would be whiter than any Sicilian or Greeks or southern Europeans who with their curly hair, short statures and faces resemble their North African ancestors. Same goes for Spanish who liberally mixed with African Moors.

The so called white features can be found all over India, not in numbers and FYI, Kashmiris are whiter than Punjabis on average, Hindu Kashmiris included, so are many Himachalis and Uttaranchalis. Don’t really matter as the world is now turning mixed and this is a moot point for all racists to live on the segregated glory of past.

Almost all of India is Caucasian, that is what he is saying in this article I do not know what you are talking about. Also Spanish did not mix with Moors in large numbers few did mix most converted to Islam and did not mix, the Moors were mainly Caucasians anyway!LOL! If you are a Hindu nationalist then you are not better than a Radical Muslim go drink cow piss, you give India a bad image!

…Like the universal law of aesthetics. We want beauty. Superior beauty lies in the white race. It is the variety of color, the red hair, the blonde hair, the green eyes, the blue eyes. All the other races in the world have only one coloring, the same black hair, the dark brown eyes and skin. A bit drab in comparison, can’t we say?

…

“Whatever ‘mental’ problems the white race developed as a result of being more powerful are only fairly recent evolutions. In his day the white man has created a throne like no other in history. If it is criminal at the foundation, the challenge is chiefly from envy—always the weakest charge. Besides, what’s the point of the dark man accusing the white man of not keeping his white morals, if the dark man himself does not believe in those morals? The charge of hypocrisy is moot, made in impotence. (The white man’s self-flagellation is the only hope of the darkies.)

“I would not look forward to a time when there is no white race. My neighbors were nothing I would want to see more of in this world—certainly not their attitude. But that there is a growing number of people in the world who think like them is a concern. The Muslim world tends to produce such a disposition.

Disguised though it may be in moral and religious terms, political terms, or even genetic terms, the case is fairly obvious: “the hated white race” is such for its beauty and power.

Regarding this Indian issue i have seen how lighter skin indian call names on their darker skin indian. sometimes i feel disgusted i’m friends with both but the two are not friend i imagine 2 factor social economic and caste.

Disclaimer: Well this is generalization from my experience anyway

By the way Robert does the Dyak red indian tribe still exist. For your question on whether the Land Dayak and Sea Dayak are related genetic test i’m assuming it’s accurate are distinctly different.

Abstract

17 Y-STRs (DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385a/b, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635 or Y-GATA C4, DYS392, Y-GATA H4, DYS437, DYS438 and DYS448) have been analyzed in 320 male individuals from Sarawak, an eastern state of Malaysia on the Borneo island using the AmpFlSTR® Y-filer™ (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). These individuals were from three indigenous ethnic groups in Sarawak comprising of 103 Ibans, 113 Bidayuhs and 104 Melanaus. The observed 17-loci haplotypes and the individual allele frequencies for each locus were estimated, whilst the locus diversity, haplotype diversity and discrimination capacity were calculated in the three groups. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) indicated that 87.6% of the haplotypic variation was found within population and 12.4% between populations (fixation index FST=0.124, p=0.000). This study has revealed that the indigenous populations in Sarawak are distinctly different to each other, and to the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia (Malays, Chinese and Indians), with the Melanaus having a strikingly high degree of shared haplotypes within. There are rare unusual variants and microvariants that were not present in Malaysian Malay, Chinese or Indian groups. In addition, occurrences of DYS385 duplications which were only noticeably present in Chinese group previously was also observed in the Iban group whilst null alleles were detected at several Y-loci (namely DYS19, DYS392, DYS389II and DYS448) in the Iban and Melanau groups.

Hi Robert Lindsay, I have bookmarked your wordpress, what a great find! Yep, I can tell you have a high IQ. This particular article is epic for an individual effort. :)

But getting down to my point:
I just wanted to express a discomfort with the way there seems to be such an obsession with some of the ‘caucasian’ neediness by some of your indian contributers here, I know passingly about the caste system in India and that it was colonised by the British, so possibly a cultural sensibility or an aspiration towards a parity the West is kind of understandable. But I also realise there is a sensitivity in the indian psyche about the idea of ‘status’ and being above another stratum in some hierarchical order and some of the comments above tell me that there is this unhealthy fear in some indian people about being classified as Asian or Black, like its an insult or even a hint of revulsion in the very idea of it. And the inquiry as to what race one of your contributors looked liked above smacks of a kind of desperation that needs some examination, it really is unhealthy to think your racial identity and even your natural given appearance for that matter to act like its the cornerstone of your entire self-esteem is not right at all.
I have also heard about a culture of skin lightening too in south Asia and alot of it is driven by peer pressure, again, I do not think this is healthy at all because its exactly the ‘caste system’ obsession that drives people to take these dangerously hazardous chemicals that alter your hormonal balance which carry serious health risks.
Materially speaking, the caste system does not matter, human rights apply to all stratums the same way and this reason for the obsession with skin colour and shade is so negligible from an outsiders view in, because as much as Indians may split hairs over which caste level they belong to, outsiders view all Indians as the same. It is so demeaning to the so called lower castes to be regarded as lowly, it is exactly the same as ‘racism’, only its institutionalised and culturally normalised like its justifiable, which in this day and age of science and technology is ‘out of order’.
Please stop obsession about skin shade, caste level, whether you’re caucasian or black, or asian, it doesnt even matter.
And if you are glad to be classified as ‘Caucasian’ rather than ‘Black’, why would you be embarassed to be called ‘Black’ or ‘Asian’ unless you were racist? Which is feasible if you take into account the ‘status’ obsession that exists widely in the Indian psyche.

I hope I am raising a valid point in what i have written, I hope it is karmic and balances the inundation of comments above and thanks Robert Lindsay for a very informative webpage, grateful to you that are using your intellect to great effect and for the benifit to people at large who may not have quite your mental processing powers. thanks.

Hey thanks James! You made my evening with that comment. I don’t get many comments like that.

I don’t think Indians care much if you call them Asian, but what they really hate is being called Black. That just infuriates them. Yeah, that’s racist. East Indian people are very racist against Blacks.

Casteism is crap for sure. And it *is* racism. Thing is, almost all Indians believe in caste. Every one I ever met was into it, and they were almost all high castes, often Brahmins. They all defended the system. I knew one guy who converted to Christianity and he said caste was crap.

The lightening chemicals are terrible, they are very bad for your body and might even kill you.

Actually, your average Indian nationalist is hostile towards Europeans and the West. Some Indians will get mad if you tell them that they look like Europeans. But there are others on here who are trying to claim the White mantle. Well, we have a great White race, and I’m glad so many folks want to join up and claim Whiteness. Surely there are White Indians, not many but some. We may as well see them as the same group as us Europeans. I’m into a “Big Tent” view of Whiteness.

I don’t think you are seeing Caucasian neediness here. They’re often confused. Afrocentrists tell Indians that they are Black. Indians are racist, and this is really upsetting to them. They come here wondering, Are we Black? So I tell them that they aren’t, that they are Caucasians. Caucasian is a cool race, and it warms my heart to see them happy in being part of Happy Family. I don’t think Indians care much about whether they are Asians or not. Asians are pretty esteemed in that part of the world. Only thing is that the low castes and tribals are often sort of Asiatic looking, so maybe what you’re seeing is that they are glad they are not in the same race as the low castes and tribals.

I don’t think it’s all that healthy. Mostly it has to do with the females. The females want to be lighter. For the men, it doesn’t matter. They really ought to just love themselves the way that they are. That’s what I promote here on my blog. We’re just against racial self-hatred. We want every ethnic group to wake up every morning and say thank God for making me Black – Mexican – Samoan – Cambodian, whatever.

The Indian guys I know tell me that the Indian women have been doing this forever – lightening their skin.

Hey Rob, Is this video correct about East Indians being mostly caucasian? The guy who posted this video is a white guy and he is saying that Indians are mostly caucasian and he has proof for that in his video.

I’m glad that some of my White brothers are defending my great Caucasian cousins in India. Indeed, they are all Caucasians by genes, but it’s also true that on some charts, they are riding the line between Asians and Whites. They are on the Asian/White divide, but in general, they cluster more with Asians than with Whites. But they are very close to Asians too.

By skulls, surely East Indians are Caucasians. However, some tribals and Tamils have Australoid skulls. But on genes even primitive East Indians are still Caucasians.

East Indians, some of them anyway, are some of the divergent Caucasians of all. They are quite far apart from the rest of the Caucasians. I think this is because they are the remains of ancient Caucasians or proto-Whites.

This is also a group of East Indians that is very close to Whites, and some East Indians are White. These are the White Indians. There are not many of them, but there are some, mostly in the north and among the higher castes.

It’s not true. Aryans did indeed come down into India 3,500 years ago. The people insisting that it is not true are all high-caste Hindu Indian nationalists, who make up this lie for nationalist and caste reasons. The science has been settled.

I am sure you are by now quite tired of the Indian obsession for knowing where they come from, which I agree is funny given that they seem to be from all over the place and very varied but I think that just makes the need to know greater.
So I will just add to that :)

I am a Uttar Pradesh Brahmin and look pretty much like any other North Indian – lightskinned but same roundish face and similar features. Many in my family are light skinned while an equal number are wheatish (the light brown that many Indians have)

But I did not understand how you classified us?

I mean if you look at me , my cousins and all instantly you would think of us as Indians and nothing else. Definitely North Indian as our features and skin colour would not make us look like an average South Indian but not very different. My understanding was that we were closest to Bengali Brahmins etc. who migrated around 600 years ago to the Bengal region from the Kanyakubja ( central india ) region. Or equally likely would be that they would be similar to other people of north india irrespective of religion or caste as that makes common sense.

But this is absolutely the first time I am hearing of the similarity between us and Kanet.

If that is the case what are these combined people like and where did they come from? Who are they more like? And where would they fit in the caucasoid , asian , mongoloid spectrum ?

Genetic testing shows a link between the Kanet and the Uttar Pradesh Brahmins. However, I do not understand the nature of the link. In fact, I don’t even know who the Kanet are! I’m quite sure that Uttar Pradesh Brahmins would be light-skinned Aryan looking types though. That seems logical. Indian genetics is pretty strange.

Hi thanks for such a prompt reply … You do seem to be very interested in these studies … Yes I am light skinned .. get taken for a Punjabi (though I am not that tall) since the general perception of Uttar Pradesh people is more of wheatish …

Personally colour does not matter to me .. But I have never imagined myself to be remotely related to any mountain people not much mongoloid either … In US I can pass off as a lighter slightly weirder looking cousin of Iranians etc.

What I am surprised that according to this study we are not apparently much linked to any other Indian group .As far as I know whenever we came from wherever we came, it has not been in the very recent past … not for a maybe 3000 years at least .. And we are fairly mixed in the population .. could it be that the study till now has been done only from a certain perspective ?

Also do we fall between caucasoid and asian like the rest of Indians?

But yeah this is definitely going to make me understand more about my past …

Any reliable sites, books that you could refer as a starter ? I am not of life sciences background being an engineer …

Thanks again,

PS : I am glad we do at least have somebody we have some commonality with! I am pretty happy being Indian and would like to be similar to more :)

Well, first of all, all Indians are pretty much closely related to each other. I made those splits, sure, but those are just minor splits really.

Looking at a map, Uttar Pradesh juts up against the Himalayas, Nepal and Tibet. And Himachal Pradesh is next door. Keep in mind that the Kanet Hindus are pretty much Indian Caucasoid looking people who resemble you a lot. The more Mongoloid types higher in the valleys typically are Buddhists and are not part of the Kanet caste.

I suppose that the Kanets are an Aryan type. So are the Uttar Pradesh Brahmin types. These Aryan types probably bred in with each other. Also the far north of India is fairly remote, so they may have been somewhat isolated from the rest of India, hence their distinctiveness. Looking at pictures of the Kanets, it does not surprise me that they would be related to you.

I got that data from Cavalli-Sforza’s book. You might want to look at it, but I believe it is quite expensive. You can check on Amazon.

Yes, you are in between Caucasoid and Mongoloid like the rest of Indians. However, I think you Aryan North Indians are more towards the Caucasoid end of the spectrum. If Indians are Caucasians, they are some of the most distinct and possibly ancient Caucasians out there. Indians are *very different* people.

Thanks again , Basically I am pretty happy that I have some of everything (even if parts) as that makes me close to all the people …That truly makes it easier to be friends with everyone :)… Not a bad thing I would say !

Hey Robert, you have an excellent blogpost here! I wanted to share my own two bits of info. First off, the name “Asian” should be changed. For one reason, it’s illogical to have a West Asian Race (Caucasians), yet call Mongoloids “Asian”, despite the fact that they only come from the eastern side of Asia. To make matters worse, Australoids are included under “Asian”, so “Asian” is now a horrible name because most Australoids (and Amerindians of course) are not from Asia. I also suggest that Africans be renamed, for it makes no sense to have a North African race, and an “African” macro race. Otherwise, great article, keep up the good work. Also, I would like to see (Anatolian) Turks’ genetical results.

If Turks are 93% Caucasian, then how come you stated in your “Everyone Has A Little Black In Them” (or some title like that) article that they were on the border between Asian and Caucasian. You also said Jews, Koreans, Georgians, etc. were on the border between Asian and Caucasian, which seems near impossible to me.

Wait, so Turks are 93% Caucasian? And Koreans, Jews, etc. aren’t on the border between Caucasoid and Mongoloid? One more thing, I think it best to call people from Latin America as “Latin American”, because Hispanic means “Spanish-speaker”; Brazilians aren’t Hispanic and Spaniards are, not to mention the fact the US government made up the term Hispanic to be ethnic, despite the fact that it really isn’t (but the government does know that it isn’t a race); and later, popular ignorance has corrupted the word Hispanic to mean “brown skinned race” or “Latin American”. So it’s just best to say Latin American, Latino isn’t a good term either (it’s not an English word, it was created by the US government as a shortening of the Spanish word “Latinoamericano”, which means Latin American) and plus Italians (and Latin Europeans) are Latino too!

If you consult the haplogroup map, It shows that Turks tend to still be very Asian not even Caucasian, but I am not sure if that represnts Turks in the Near East, I think Turkish in the Near East would be Caucasians probably a mix of Iranic Hittites, Greeks, and possibly some Mongoloid for the Mongols, Look at Turkish people, most are Caucasian some few are Mongoloid. This is similar to Somalians who are actually Caucasians that naturally originated in Africa, but they are really between Black and Caucasian with some falling in Caucasian others in Black and are similar genetically to Africans, also many are now mixed with Bantu, you will find that North African are also a small fraction SubSaharan African, and as you travel further south the more SubSharan African people get. Also some Somalians are mixed with Bendouins and other Caucasian Semetic types but not to a high degree.

How can Australoids be Mongoloid? Australoids first left Africa (1st wave of migration out of Africa) WAY earlier than the 2nd wave of migration out of Africa, and those 2nd leaver eventually became the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. Genetic markers, etc. prove this, and they also prove that Australoids are older than Mongoloids, so I find it impossible for Australoids to be the same race as Mongoloids. And no, Australoids are NOT “proto-Mongoloids” or “proto-Caucasoids”.

I think what he means is that by now they have differentiated, plus Australoids cluster genetically mostly with Mongoloids, and some in India with Caucasians, they are no longer distinct, only some of their phenotypes remain unchanged due to convergent evolution and adaptation to climate as well as random genetic effects. Obviously Australoids are still somewhat genetically distinct from surrounding Mongoloids but not by much, and soon they may be extinct. But you are right about the migration. Consult the
Cavalli-Sforza’s haplogroup gene map, it is world renowned and is supported by 1994 and 2009 research.

I’m not sure, but I have been told that Australoids are “Asians.” On what basis they determine that, I have no idea. But if you have three races – Asian, Caucasian and African, Australoids go to Asian.

Granted, Australoids of the Papuan and Aborigine variety are very far removed genetically from the rest of the Asians and everyone else for that matter.

Other Australoids such as Tamils and Vedda types, Negritos, Melanesians, etc. are in Caucasian or Asian races. Negritos and Melanesians are Asians. Tamils and Veddas are Caucasians.

Where does the Asian element in India come from? I have seen some Indian look a little Asiatic (and we are genetically proven t be in between Euroepans an Asians but closer to Europeans generally), women more so than men.

Have you ever considered exchanging the word “race” for the word “origin” or “branch”? A lot of animosity can derive from the symbolic meaning of a word like “race” because of the constant anti-racism or pro-diversity talk, which can bring even the most tolerant person to the rims of mental exhaustion. I read your position on race, and although I think it is a good idea to state that you are not discriminatory of people who are decent and law abiding citizens, criticizing holocaust revisionism kind of weakens your point. Historical revisionists should be free to try and revise any aspect of history as you should be free to research ethnic origins. A revisionist website could easily make a point in saying that although holocaust revision is ok, race research is not. Maybe it would better if everyone could try to find out what is fact and what is fiction. Truth reveals itself in the light of honest learning effort. Thank you.

Robert, I have a questionthat has bugged me for a while now. Why is it that many Japanese people have such Caucasian features, like the typical Caucasian beard and more symmetrical faces than other (Northeast) Asians and they are pretty light skinned in general. Are they mixed to a significant degree with the Ainu (who themselves appear Caucasian)? Or why is it that many Japanese have a somewhat Caucasoid appearance/Caucasoid features. Also, if the Ainus are Northeast Asians, then why do they appear so different (many DNA tests on them today might be inaccurate since most modern-day Ainu are mixed with Mongoloid).

Okay,the part where you PURPOSELY GROUPED guangdong han grouped with amis,filipino is completely made up by you. In fact I have not found any other sources that claim this apart from this blog.

THERE GENETICS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.It’s true that guangdong han has southeast asian genes. But they also have han chinese marker of O3a5 next haplogroup is O2a1, O2a,O1a-m19. Taiwanese aboriginge have 90% haplogroup O1, amis have 60%, filipinos 46%. and guangdong ha has only 15% on average. Amis mtdna is B4a1 and is found at 44% but it is found at 0% in guangdong han

Guangdong han genes is more similar to VIETNAMESE or mixed between han chinese and vietnamese. The yue people were composed of many different tribes.

”
Taiwan AN populations and found a new lineage (B4a1a) totally absent in mainland China
but common in Taiwan and Southeast Asia, a result backing up the

Taken together, these results suggest that Taiwanese aboriginal populations have genetically been
isolated from mainland Chinese for 10000 to 20000 years

they showed that there were enough different mtDNA mutations between the mainland Chinese population
and the aboriginal Taiwanese to support the archeological findings suggesting a long period of habitation “

How is it that you can consider Australoids to be Mongoloid? There were two waves of humans leaving Africa. the first wave produced Australoids, and the second wave produced Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The second wave was thousands upon thousands of years after the first wave. So in no shape or form are Australoids Mongoloid. Perhaps the Cavalli-Sforza’s Principal Coordinate (PC) autosomal DNA haplogroup gene mapping (aka Figure 1) did not put a 3-d axis (x,y,z) and perhaps if he did, the Australoids would appear in their own quartile. But Australoids came thousands of years before Mongoloids, so there’s no way they’re the same race. So I believe you should modify your race scheme to separate Mongoloids and Australoids.

All Eurasian populations have the same excess Neanderthal affinity versus Africans, so there’s no way they come from two different waves widely separated in time. Also, “Australoid”, “Mongoloid”, and “Caucasoid” are useful categories only to a certain extent. They are not absolutes and should not be treated as such. “Australoid” being the least useful of all them.

A little late with this I am, but I appreciate that you expanded discussion on this. I am confident that an Anatolian origin for Indo-European, one from as early as the Neolithic, is by far the most plausible theory. For anyone even remotely familiar with the archeology of Europe and the Middle East between the mesolithic and the Iron Age, the Kurgan thesis is just laughably implausible. Really, it is no better than the Paleolothic Continuity Hypothesis or Out-of-India. For starters, the Kurgans practiced burial, in fact that was the defining feature of their culture, kurgan burial mounds. The proto-Indo Europeans almost certainly preferred cremation, as IE-speaking cultures did until Abrahamic religions arrived. The Celts, Germanic tribes (including Vikings well into the Middle Ages), Hindus, probably Iranians (until some Zoroastrian magi got a wild hair up his ass and decided that burial and cremation “pollute” the sacred elements of earth and fire respectively and decided vultures are the proper means of dealing with human remains), the ancient Greeks and Romans (as recorded by Homer, though ironically the great Mycenean kings had royal burial practices, but the crude mummification was no doubt influenced by Egypt). This of course, is by no means a solid objection different funerary practices were no doubt used, but this is a very obvious red flag. It seems odd that the foundational culture would exclusively practice burial but virtually all offshoots would prefer cremation most of the time. Not to mention, the notion that elite dominance is likely to spread a language (particularly when said elite is composed of primitive, dirt-poor, steppe pastoralists) is a-historical. Did the Huns, Mongols, or Manchus impose their language on China? Did, the Vikings impose their language on northern France? (There are rare exceptions, the Ottoman Turks come to mind, but they usually have vast technological and/or political advantages.)

Of course, one might object to a neolithic origin of proto-Indo-European on the basis of time depth. The problem with that objection is that it is premised on a false assumption. The glottochronology methods are fatally flawed. To test the method, linguists attempted to reconstruct the proto-Romance language (pretending that Latin was unknown). They found that the word for war in this reconstruction is “guerrum” (in Latin it is “bellum”), and they predicted splits about 1000 years too late. Chances are that ages for divergences of prehistoric languages are under-estimated. This does not necessarily make Paleolithic Continuity that much more plausible, but it certainly pokes holes in the notion that proto-Indo-European developed in the Bronze Age.

But how did IE languages spread? One question is whether the initial splitting was latitudinal (North-South or North-Central-South) or longitudinal (East-West). Anatolia was the primary urheimat, but there were probably secondary urheimats. I used to lean towards an initial East-West split (based largely on the Centum-Satem hypothesis, though admittedly that is probably not a valid model under closer inspection), but I now lean more towards a latitudinal model. Most likely, proto-Hittite was the first branch to diverge within the Anatolian Urheimat, followed by the other branches shortly after. Some migrated through the Balkans, others over the Caucasus. The Alpine Urheimat probably gave rise to the Celtic and Italic languages. The Baltic Urheimat probably gave rise to Germano-Balto-Slavic. The Balkan Urheimat (roughly Romania, Bulgaria, most of former-Yugoslavia, extreme Northern Greece, parts of Albania) gave rise to Illyrian and Thraco-Dacian (Albanians being the sole survivor of these people), a Lower Volga Urheimat for Aryans (Indo-Iranian), etc. There were probably tertiary urheimats as well. So, yes, Central Asia (particularly the land immediately north of the Caspian Sea, probably was an Indo-European homeland, just not THE Indo-European homeland. At least there is archeological support for such a movement of Indo-Aryans. (No such evidence indicates a similar movement of proto-Hellenes or Hittites down the Balkans.)

RE: the “Uralic” Languages

I don’t think the relation between Uralic and Altaic is Nazi propaganda. I may be wrong, but my sources (Grolier Encyclopedia, 1991 ed., a bit dated, I know!) give it credence. jaakkeli seems offended by the suggestion, but affinities between Uralic and Turko-Mongolian languages SEEM credible to me. (Certainly written Finnish and Estonian LOOK like written Turkish to me. Hungarian and Turkish sound similar to me.) Granted, I may be wrong. (For that matter, the relation of Japanese and Korean to Altaic languages strikes me as kind of a stretch now that I think about it. The two languages almost certainly come from a common “Yapano-Choson” proto-language, but I am unsure that it can be linked to the Mongolian or Tungusic languages so easily.) The linguistic relation between Finnic-Ugric languages to Altaic languages may not be much. But what about anthropological and genetic evidence implying a strong Asiatic affinity of Uralic peoples? I wonder what jaakkeli’s thoughts on that are. I am aware that Y chromosome haplogroup N is common among Finnic speaking peoples (but also Swedes, Russians, Balts…) as well as Mongols, some Chinese, and some Siberian tribes. Not to mention, the Lapps have an Asian-looking phenotype. I always took the Lapps as being representative of the Uralic people. jaakkeli mentions the Finnish people (not to be confused with the Finnic people, as Turkish people must not be confused with Turkic people), though I do not think they are a Uralic people so much as a Northern/Northeastern European people who speak a Uralic language. I think a plurality of the Finnish ancestry is from Swedish Vikings, with significant proto-Balto-Slavic admixture, and only minor (but significant) Uralic ancestry. Autosomally, Finns are more like Swedes and Russians, but I am pretty sure that they are plurality Y haplogroup-N. Even so, if the Finno-Ugric people do not have Mongolian ethnic affinities (and perhaps jaakkeli is right, I’m probably wrong), where did the Lapps (and Samoyeds) come from? How did they get a Sino-Mongolian phenotype, which is evident even in some Nordic peoples. (This Lappish ancestry must have contributed to the Norwegian Vikings, including those who colonized Iceland. Just look at Bjork!) I know that Robert Lindsay considers Saami Caucasian, albeit major outliers. The Saami can be described as “genotypically Caucasoid, phenotypically Mongoloid” as the Veddoids might be “genotypically Caucasoid, phenotypically Australoid” or as the Melanesians and Negritos might be “genotypically Mongoloid, phenotypically Australoid.” So, if jaakkeli believes that the Uralic languages have a West Eurasian origin (presumably from Ice Age survivors expanding north from the hypothetical Ukranian refugium, as Basque no doubt originated in the Iberian refugium, and both Indo-European and Kartvelian originated among the Near Eastern first farmers), I presume that any apparent similarities with Altaic languages can be explained via language contact (direct, or indirect with Indo-Iranian, and millenia later, Tocharian speakers acting as a conduit). How then does he or she explain the origin of the Lapps? Were they lost Eskimoes?

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid. Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture. I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Uyghurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race). And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture. The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture). The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I came across your blog by accident Robert. As accidents go, I can live with this one. Your article on the races is provocative and more accurate than most of the PC crowd are willing to admit. I have long advocated similar views (and sometimes been called the R word). Like you, I don’t go along with using the words good and bad as the apply to science or facts (the opposite of lies?). After all science is simply a collection of facts that “prove” or “disprove” a hypothisis. There are differences between all the races and really race is just the starting point when it comes to the differences between peoples. There are differences between people based on geography, culture, environment. etc. even in homgenous societies (the castes in India are a good example of this). One could argue the so called red state, blue state divide in the U.S. is a largely a division between coastal regions and landlocked regions. OK, I’m over that for now. Iconoclasts are all good in my world. Keep on blasting away.

Oh! I am sorry. They are in the Indian branch of the Caucasian group on genes. On skulls, not so sure. Maybe the same. Are their skulls a lot different from Tamils? Do Sinhalese and Tamil people look different?

i post my few pics with this comment, sir,can u help me to know my nose shape and i look like from which race or country.
in real i’m from north-west part of india but i wanna know i look european or black ??

I got little exposure about South Indians/Tamils thro’ Robert. Veddas actually means hunters in Tamil (vedan=hunter). Srilankan veddas are said to be African descendents. Similarly, Kerala Kadars ( Kadu=Forest in Tamil). are African descendents or africo-astraloids. All dark skinned south indians are africo-astraloids. I am really happy about Robert Lindsay’s work.

As I was just explaining on another blog, populations cluster into major groups and if there is any such thing as race, these groups are the races. The distance between the clusters is because of geographical separation, whether by mountains, seas or desert.

Mr. Lindsay, it is apparent that you have vast amounts of knowledge on the topic of race. Do you feel that with such knowledge comes power and influence? I have been searching for a well-written piece that teaches people how to treat each other in a civil manner regardless of race–for the sake of ethics. You claim that you want everyone to be proud of their background; yet, I cannnot help but wonder if you hold personal biases against certain people. I believe often times people rush to be rude or look down on people who look most different from them. If regions of the world with darker people had more economic power, would these people be given regard? The reason why I am asking is because I have observed similar cultural traits among people who have not traditionally embraced each other. I am wondering if elitist racial attitudes stem solely from aesthetics, or the desire not to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. I am aware that you are not NPR, but I just wanted to ask. Thank you.

Thanks for the quick reply.
If it means Shompen, where do the other Nicobari group? Mentawi Race?

Shompen are restricted to the interoir of great Nicobar island. On the coast and on the other islands the Nicobari people live – they are not recent immigrants. So the term “Nicobarese” might be confusing using it only for Shompen.

Hi. Sorry if this a stupid question, but would Ashkenazi Jews be closer to Southern Europeans like Greeks, and Italians, or Near Easterners like Lebanese, and Syrians. Also, where would I, a 1/4 Ashkenazi, 3/4 North, and Eastern European cluster?

you people are fools if you listen to this guy robert,he is a racist, the original indians from india is indeed black ,but when god arrives with his son and he will be black what will you say then.? you so call europeans whites you are the king when it comes to making people hate themselves i give that to you. you them jesus is white but if you go to europe they are praying to a black mary and jesus.ha ha you fools are crazxy to listen to this guy and you indians who want to be white you are the biggest fools.

I’ve studied Anthropology for over forty years on my own without the benefit of formal instruction. But I know many things, and one such thing is that Indo-European speech originated in southern Anatolia as the language of hunter-gatherers who started to practice agriculture. However in Pontic Anatolia with it’s forests another group existed whose modern language has 55% of it’s root words of Non-Indoeuropean origin and of unknown affinity. This folk was in cultural clash with the Hittites,expanded into Armenia Minor and aided in the fall of that empire. Later the Neo-Hittites cooperated with them and an Assyrian king encountered a combined army of Great Hatti and Kaska demanded their submission in Hayasa (classical Greater Armenia) and continued on campaign and then fought a battle against an army of Mushki(Phrygians) in Mygdonia. The only reason that I mention this, is that the proto-Armenians were isolated for centuries and only drifted East in historical times to enter Hayasastan. Thus their blood types should not resemble those in India. Now back to the Kentum Indoeuropeans who moved Northwest and eventually arrived in the steppes of Western Ukaraine where they became Satem Indoeuropeans. With the Stogi Beg horse culture with the crude ox-cart like chariots of that time. With this tactical innovation they became the masters of the steppes, overran the Turks and entered Iran some drifted West as the Mittanni others to the East as Aryans taking their blood type variation from East Europe with them. Now remember this is before the historic East to West invasions. Ihope that this enlightens those Indians as to how Hindus could resemble East Europeans genetically.More insights later…

I have been doing some research since my last post, Robert.DNA science is about 35 years old? My sister worked on the Star Wars missile defense system and later on the Human Genetic Project and I have serious reasoning as well. What if the whole premise is flawed? That idea, that mutation and less diverse types are somehow degenerate forms from previous types! Does not sound very evolutionary… more de-evolutionary in fact. I never hear how Y-A ,turned into B, nor how C emerged. I am comfortable with the fact that the Great Apes have 48 chromosomes and that most Humans have 46, but in Namibia tribes a hotspot for Y-A there are percentages that have more than 46 others with less and a majority with the standard 46! What if for example, Y-A is a novel evolutionary trait. Perhaps as recent as Boskopoid Man of South Africa with a greater than modern cranial capacity? Say 60,000 years ago they moved up the Great Rift valley and crossed into Asia, those that remained in Africa may undergone a phenotype change by mixture with Pygmies and later the Bantu migration further altered the original phenotype. But the Grimaldi Man mixture later entered Europe as is known in Monaco. But what exotic traits remain in the original range of evolution? I suggest that a orthognathic facial profile, yellowish skin, and an epicanthic eye fold that evolved as a defense against sun glare and remains in Asia for snow glare. I doubt that there have ever been true species of Mankind in the last 2,000,000 years as considered on a rolling time frame. Now that does not mean that a Human from that early date could successfully mate with a modern person but nobody can prove it either way! Regional variety is the norm and mixture and isolation are periodic and perhaps glacially driven in part. But periphery survival not extinction is close to the truth and truth is what should be sought not esoteric vindication of established theories. Archaic Sapiens encountered an evolving Cro-Magnon and left very old traces in Modern Man,like shovel-shaped incisors in Northeast Asia, flattened occiput in many Dinarics and Armeniods, the dimorphic male trait of the Brow of Michaelangelo in many Caucasians and aboriginals of Southeast Asia as in Oceania (so-called Neanderthaloids). The survival of so-called extinct genetic material in Modern Man from at least two different sources will be multiplied over time and demonstrate this truth.

Coward, I have not visited your mentioned site,but most of my research reading was done in the printed word to be found in the Non-Fiction&Research sections of most libraries. But in the Brittannica and I have owned and read editions as far back as the mid-50’s to the last printed version, the take is different to that of your opinion. The modern mean is about 1,400 cc’s modern Pygmies about 1,000 and Lord Byron was said to have over 2,000 and the mean of measurable skulls for Boskop as well as Neanderthal are in excess of the modern mean. However that is perhaps off point, as I was pointing out a continued evolution process in Sapiens not necessarily more intelligent as it seems that the Human brain has a chip if you would in the Hypothalmus. The prefrontal may be over rated, and most mutations are harmful, some deadly, and very few prove to be viewed with favor over the fullness of Time!

Most mutations are neutral. Greater cranial capacity does not nessecarily mean greater intelligence. We evolved from small-brained hominids, so mutations were favorable to us. However, some mutations are indeed harmful, and possibly lethal. Boskopoid man was debunked by the mainstream scientific community, and having a prefrontal cortex as large as Boskopoid’s alleged size would be harmful to us, and would slow down our thought processes severly. It’s like heat and water, just enough is good for you, too much or little is lethal.

By the way, the modern mean is 1335cc, the Caucasian mean is 1350cc, the Northeast Asian mean is 1485cc, and the Black African mean is 1200cc. Now like Robert said in his earlier posts, Eskimos have a 1485cc brain and an IQ around 85. I doubt Lord Bryon had a 2000cc brain, that would cause severe mental retardation in humans.

The conflict, it seems is within yourself! And possibly the angry young man syndrome, but you may be aging now and angry about that too. From your range of insults,you are mixed-up in your mind and probably insecure in your identity&sexuality. Now, as for me,I am a WASP that voted for Obama twice. Members of my family have been in the Who’s Who for centuries of Dutch, English, and Scottish nobility. And post-American Revolution two of my British ancestors a father and his son entered America.While here they married a mother and her daughter who were French aristocrats, fleeing the French Revolution. So, French nobility as well. I am a heterosexual natural father and a grandfather. And now to some of your assertions before you snapped! Lord Byron was a hulk of a man an accomplished poet and died fighting in the Balkan Wars of independence from the Ottoman Empire, quite functional! As for those neutral mutations you worry about, they seem neutral as their function are ill-understood or considered to be mundane and not essential to viability. My guess as to your IQ scores for Eskimos are dated and if the recent Alaskan efforts at education beyond the eight grade are considered then you will find them in the normal range, not all information is available over the net. Also your logic, metaphor and reasoning need polish as do your manners.

I am a Scandinavian/German mix on my father’s side, I have heritage fro Finland, Norway, but I am mostly Danish patrilineally. On my mother’s side I am Ryukyuan Japanese and Chinese. I am 6″4 and I have red hair and a heavy red beard.

after reading this post in really now I wondering whar my genepool could be..I am a Sikh Indian woman with Caramel complexion, black hair and dark-light brown eyes & definitely darkest complexion in my family . My maternal & paternal family all have brown hair, green/blue/grey eyes and v tall -mainly upto 6′-5( upto 4 generations previously) in come cases eyes like bit asiatic too. I get that comment too sometimes of being a NE Indian !!!

There is no gene that is limited to one race and not found in another race. Race is merely the frequencies certain allelles are found in populations. For example, 27% of Caucasians may have the blood type B+, and only 5% of Africans (these are not real statistics.) That would make genetic distance between the groups 0.22.

Hi,
I have read your treatise on the ethnicity of the world and have read with interest the replies.Most of the replies seem to come from the Asian side of the world, specifically Indian. The whole gist of this exercise however appears to denigrate anyone from the “negroid” group. The Indians especially seem to lap up every idea that they belong to the “caucasoid” group with aplomb,as if it gives them a sense of wellbeing. Also I believe the writer of this piece has a not so hidden bias against the so called “negroids” and his agenda is to show just how inferior we are. Well since you and your Indian fans have already made up your minds about us “negroids”, it would be a waste of time me defending my existence and argueing for our place i the world. So will just say no matter what “scientific” reasonings and theories you have concluded, I just don’t give a damn…I also noticed that any contributor to your blog that made any sense denouncing your “theories”, you simply ignore them, eg Dennis Worthley on May 6, 2013 at 1:56 AM. Never mind, I can understand when someone challenges your “theories” and you can’t think of a suitable answer. That said, everyones entitled to their opinion,no matter how biased and “Fox News” it appears.
Bye..

Peter, thanks for your post.
If I may, I’m actually pretty interested in knowing why a Black reader of this blog might feel insulted… is this coming from Robert’s rejection of the Afrocentric theory? And how exactly is this blog agenda to “show how inferior” the “negroid” is? Some readers would actually be very interested in hearing you “defend your existence” as you put it, simply because we are very interested in healthy, reasonable debate.

Or, if Peter is not up for it, maybe someone else would like to address this?

I am profoundly exasperated by the Blacks who come to this blog. The come here with all guns firing at once, profoundly hostile, and most of them are overflowing with hatred towards Whites. Almost all Blacks who come to this site and instantly banned due to their extreme hostility.

Nevertheless, I have tried to be very fair to Blacks on this site and actually I am so afraid of being called racist that I bend over backwards to be fair to Blacks to the extreme. It is not my intention here to insult Blacks or to show that they are inferior or how they are inferior. Quite the opposite.

Nevertheless, I am starting to think that you just can’t win with Black people and they are just going to hate you no matter what you do or say. Why even bother trying to be nice to Black people? Who not just hate them? They will hate us the same whether we try to be nice to them or not. They’re hopeless.

I’m black and I wasn’t offended. I found your information insightful and concise. Why lump us all into a category with a few intellectual lazy slobs who didn’t take the time to actually read your post. I don’t lump you in with yee haw gun toting redneck republicans….they’re hopeless too

Hello Robert,it has been awhile since my last post,when I answered the challenge of the now banned coward.You should perhaps leave some reference when doing so,as Peter thought that I was attacking you and your views.That said,I will restate some of my positions e.g.that there has been no proof of human speciation in (Homo) over the last 2,000,000 yr.s just regional variations or race (that hush-hush term to Derek Mason) but I can think of no other appropriate term for Caucasoid as it is inclusive of Europoid,Western Asian,and Indic.I can get the distaste for Negroid & Negritos or Negrillos for many Americans both North & South so Sub-Saharans & Pygmies,although as pointed out the Pygmies are in classes of their own as are Veddiods & Australoids especially in the light of the Denisovo genetics shared by Papuans & Melanesians (who share blondism/albinism with the others but a peculiar type that alters facial characteristics as well,I have seen some that could be mistaken for one of my well tanned golden haired cousins.The robust skulls & jaws of some Papuans betray the Erectus connection along with the prominent browridge which is a dimorphic (male) trait in many Caucasian ethnic groups.Now some of your viewers may scoff that this is splitting hairs and that all are really Blacks…but I caution those that would have it both ways and specifically the Afro-centrists! Would that I see all with dark skin or a drop of blood as Black? That would be a traditional blue-blood attitude,but I thought that we were supposed to get past that and respect the individual and their origins and each group with it’s claim to fame.There are quirks and flaws in the Out of Africa theory & the molecular clock.By the way I will be using a calibration that is in rivalry with the one normally cited and is 25% older and correlates well with known lithic industries and their cultural movements.Also the capital citations are for Y-haplogroups unless noted as mtDNA.The Out of Africa Theory states that in the last 100,000 or alternately 60,000 years there has been a complete change in humanity and all vestiges of former humans have been eclipsed.I and others find that demonstratively in error.The recently deceased African-American who made us aware of A00 @ 450,000kya and the known living with A0 @ 265,000 kya didn’t get the CF split in the Middle East @ 100,000 memo about the Adam & Eve or is it three Eves (mtDNA L1,L2,and L3) clearance ,and don’t get me started about the never out of Africa A & B haplogroups However there is another troublesome matter,that of the no growth spurt African & Asian Pygmies,Bushmen, and Hottentots none of which suffers from dwarfism.All with perhaps the exception of the Asiatic Pygmy,have but a peach fuzz-like covering of the skin and nearly non-existant pubic and facial hair.Let us leave the Pygmies behind us now and focus upon Bushmen & Hottentots and yes they are different and have remarkable traits,like premature wrinkles and the epicanthic eye folds for sun glare which seem to recur in the Amerinds & Northeast Asians and preserved for snow glare.Ever hear of the Mongolian blue dot that is present at birth and appears above the tailbone but soon fades away? I cann’t remember if in both or just one of them,nor can I remember which one has only lobeless or attached ear lobes.The Bushmen have yellowish skin as do the Hottentots but they also sometimes have a orange to reddish tint as well.Steatopygia occurs among the women but also occassionally among the Hottentot males as well,Venus figurines anyone? The face appears oval when viewed from the front as the cheek bones flair and bulge with long to mesocephallic skull and remarkable orthognathism or flattened face as in Orientals but marked prognathism of the jaw producing chin prominence in their infamous Capoid relative Boskop Man.When I was growing up conventional wisdom stated that Capoids & Mongolids could not be related because their blood types were different but it seems that the B-blood type is adaptive and no longer a hindrance to their relationship. What could change this diminutive lot of remnants back to the former grandeur of their Capoid relative Boskop Man with his massive and long skull,prominent chin,and more robust build? The DE split @ 115,000 kya comes to mind,with D moving northeast into Tibet then to Japan & E moving southwest into Africa,the Back to Africa Theory if you will.What would this E haplogroup Man look like? I suggest a Sapient Neanderthoid hybrid still slight in the chin but possessing a huge long-headed skull and just such a Sapient Neaderthaloid existed in East Africa at the appropriate time for hybridization.Thus plenty of time for the Capoid Boskop Man development and the rush to clam bakes down by the Cape with the rolling beach party moving up the East Coast (the West had too much desert for comfort) and heading North to destiny.And somewhere up North they gave rise to the Grimaldi Man who mingled in clans among the presumably Caucasoid Aterians who much later move into Iberia as Azilians.But back to the Capoids who enter Asia as the much touted Out of Africa Cromagnons with their high cheek bones and by now R haplogroup.Think that too much? There are more blows to the Theory,like survival of the red hair and light skin of the Sapient Neanderthals and freckles identified among their genetics and carried by about 2% of the world’s population. By the way dark skin is a developed trait with an original norm of light skin at birth but darkening with need, some have mutated to the point that even their internal organs are highly pigmented and there can be no practical advantage in that!I could explain my Philological theories but better leave something for later.Oh,and for those haters out there I have visited The Real History site and read it’s offerings and there is much truth there but a bit overdone like the Vinca horselord of 3,900 kya I think him an Atlanto-Mediterranean but a viable debate topic and possibly that whole ethnic group was in origin Sub-Saharan, submerged by mixture with Caucasians but the measurements of the horselord’s lower leg & arms first because the eye socket thing is not enough especially with the high bridge.

Is there not enough genetic difference between the various European groups (the Germans, the English, Italians, Spanish etc.) to split into various subgroups even though you’ve split the East Asians on such lines (ie Japanaese-Korean. North Chinese, South Chinese etc.)?

Noooo. They are very very close. But there are some that should be split off anyway. Ashkenazi Jews for one and Orcadian Scots for another. I simply gave up on this project at one point because my head was spinning around so much. There is way more divergence with the Asians than with the Europeans. Maybe the Euros have been breeding together a lot for some time now.

Your nine races share a lot of each other. This can only be explained like this: There are three main races ‘skeletally’. i dont know the scientific term for this.

Mongoloid: Southern mongoloids evolved different physical traits compared to northern mongoloids due to hundreds of thousands of years spent in tropical weather eating tropical food and facing tropical conditions. These can affect genes too.

Caucosoid: Southern caucsoids evolved different physical traits compared to northern caucosoids due to hundreds of thousands of years spent in tropical weather eating tropical food and facing tropical conditions.

Negroid: These were a smaller group in number spread in a smaller area geographically and with a similar climate. Some of them migrated from NE africa upto australia and pacific islands. Some of them went to america in the colonial era and have become fairer.

The other groups that dont seem to fit in these three groups are only a reproductive product of various people of these three races, who came into contact and lived in contact with each other for thousands of years. For eg the negroid that migrated to australia became austroloid….as they met southern caucasoid in andaman, australia and bred with some of them in the process….resulting in austroloid. These people also met and reproduced with some southern mongoloid people

This is based on my opinion and understanding of the differences and similarities between various ethnic groups . The genetic sample of people of various countries taken, is too small. Less than one percent of the population.

The pygmies,bushmen are a variant of the negroid but developed slightly different physical traits based on their surroundings/lifestyle and the food/animals they ate. They did this for thousands of years and hence developed slight physical differences with the main stream negroids.